Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Formalized Mathematics

(a computer assisted approach)

Editor-in-Chief: Matuszewski, Roman

4 Issues per year

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.207
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.315

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 17, Issue 4 (Jan 2009)


Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem for Posets

Piotr Rudnicki
  • University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Published Online: 2010-07-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10037-009-0028-4

Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem for Posets

The following theorem is due to Dilworth [8]: Let P be a partially ordered set. If the maximal number of elements in an independent subset (anti-chain) of P is k, then P is the union of k chains (cliques).

In this article we formalize an elegant proof of the above theorem for finite posets by Perles [13]. The result is then used in proving the case of infinite posets following the original proof of Dilworth [8].

A dual of Dilworth's theorem also holds: a poset with maximum clique m is a union of m independent sets. The proof of this dual fact is considerably easier; we follow the proof by Mirsky [11]. Mirsky states also a corollary that a poset of r x s + 1 elements possesses a clique of size r + 1 or an independent set of size s + 1, or both. This corollary is then used to prove the result of Erdős and Szekeres [9].

Instead of using posets, we drop reflexivity and state the facts about anti-symmetric and transitive relations.

  • [1] Grzegorz Bancerek. Cardinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(2):377-382, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [2] Grzegorz Bancerek. The fundamental properties of natural numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):41-46, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [3] Grzegorz Bancerek. The ordinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):91-96, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [4] Grzegorz Bancerek. Bounds in posets and relational substructures. Formalized Mathematics, 6(1):81-91, 1997.Google Scholar

  • [5] Grzegorz Bancerek. Directed sets, nets, ideals, filters, and maps. Formalized Mathematics, 6(1):93-107, 1997.Google Scholar

  • [6] Czesław Byliński. Some basic properties of sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):47-53, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [7] Agata Darmochwał. Finite sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):165-167, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [8] R. P. Dilworth. A Decomposition Theorem for Partially Ordered Sets. Annals of Mathematics, 51(1):161-166, 1950.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] P. Erdős and G. Szekeres. A combinatorial problem in geometry. Compositio Mathematica, 2:463-470, 1935.Google Scholar

  • [10] Adam Grabowski. Auxiliary and approximating relations. Formalized Mathematics, 6(2):179-188, 1997.Google Scholar

  • [11] L. Mirsky. A Dual of Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 78(8).Google Scholar

  • [12] Beata Padlewska. Families of sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):147-152, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [13] M. A. Perles. A Proof of Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem for Partially Ordered Sets. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 1:105-107, 1963.Google Scholar

  • [14] Konrad Raczkowski and Paweł Sadowski. Equivalence relations and classes of abstraction. Formalized Mathematics, 1(3):441-444, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [15] Andrzej Trybulec. Domains and their Cartesian products. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):115-122, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [16] Wojciech A. Trybulec and Grzegorz Bancerek. Kuratowski - Zorn lemma. Formalized Mathematics, 1(2):387-393, 1990.Google Scholar

  • [17] Zinaida Trybulec. Properties of subsets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):67-71, 1990.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2010-07-08

Published in Print: 2009-01-01

Citation Information: Formalized Mathematics, ISSN (Online) 1898-9934, ISSN (Print) 1426-2630, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10037-009-0028-4.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in