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.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.