Grzegorz Bancerek. Cardinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(2):377-382, 1990.Google Scholar
 Grzegorz Bancerek. The fundamental properties of natural numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):41-46, 1990.Google Scholar
 Grzegorz Bancerek. The ordinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):91-96, 1990.Google Scholar
 Grzegorz Bancerek. Bounds in posets and relational substructures. Formalized Mathematics, 6(1):81-91, 1997.Google Scholar
 Grzegorz Bancerek. Directed sets, nets, ideals, filters, and maps. Formalized Mathematics, 6(1):93-107, 1997.Google Scholar
 Czesław Byliński. Some basic properties of sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):47-53, 1990.Google Scholar
 Agata Darmochwał. Finite sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):165-167, 1990.Google Scholar
 P. Erdős and G. Szekeres. A combinatorial problem in geometry. Compositio Mathematica, 2:463-470, 1935.Google Scholar
 Adam Grabowski. Auxiliary and approximating relations. Formalized Mathematics, 6(2):179-188, 1997.Google Scholar
 L. Mirsky. A Dual of Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 78(8).Google Scholar
 Beata Padlewska. Families of sets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):147-152, 1990.Google Scholar
 M. A. Perles. A Proof of Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem for Partially Ordered Sets. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 1:105-107, 1963.Google Scholar
 Konrad Raczkowski and Paweł Sadowski. Equivalence relations and classes of abstraction. Formalized Mathematics, 1(3):441-444, 1990.Google Scholar
 Andrzej Trybulec. Domains and their Cartesian products. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):115-122, 1990.Google Scholar
 Wojciech A. Trybulec and Grzegorz Bancerek. Kuratowski - Zorn lemma. Formalized Mathematics, 1(2):387-393, 1990.Google Scholar
 Zinaida Trybulec. Properties of subsets. Formalized Mathematics, 1(1):67-71, 1990.Google Scholar
(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
Dilworth's Decomposition Theorem for Posets
The following theorem is due to Dilworth : 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 . The result is then used in proving the case of infinite posets following the original proof of Dilworth .
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 . 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 .
Instead of using posets, we drop reflexivity and state the facts about anti-symmetric and transitive relations.