Çorluda en iyi avukatlar

Çorluda miras hukuku avukatları

Çorludaki boşanma avukatları

Çorlunun en iyi avukatları

Çorlu ağır ceza avukatları

Avukatlık bürosu

Avukatlık ofisi

Avukatlık hizmeti

Ağır ceza davası

Çorlu ağır ceza davası avukatları

Çorlu avukatlık büroları

En iyi aile hukuku avukatları

En iyi avukatlar listesi çorlu

En iyi hukuk büroları

En ünlü boşanma avukatları

Hukuk büroları çorlu

Indeed. If we would try to tweak Chase and Lovett’s example to this stricter approdximately union-closed definition, we would run into problems. From results about largest k-uniform families L-avoiding (the symmetric distance between any pair is not in some subset of forbidden distances L), we would only be able to take a very small fraction of the layer, if we would want to satisfy the stricter definition.

This leads me to wonder: can we find some upper bound on

,

for a union-closed family , so that each element appears in at most sets.

]]>And I didn’t find a counterexample after all.

]]>Why this order Y > X is not preserved by a linear transformation, if you transform K to less thin?

]]>It is still possible the conclusion of Frankl’s conjecture does approximately hold for approximately union-closed families in the sense that of sets that are unions of sets in the family, belong to the family.

]]>*GK: Thanks, Imre; corrected.*

I can’t say I really have a solid sense of the problem yet but the last time it came up in these parts I was following a clue from Lipton & Regan toward what I saw as a differential approach. I didn’t get very far at the time but here’s a first link for what it’s worth.

]]>