Cross-intersecting families of vectors

Abstract: Given a sequence of positive integers $p = (p_1, . . ., p_n)$, let $S_p$ denote the family of all sequences of positive integers $x = (x_1,...,x_n)$ such that $x_i \le p_i$ for all $i$. Two families of sequences (or vectors), $A,B \subseteq S_p$, are said to be $r$-cross-intersecting if no matter how we select $x \in A$ and $y \in B$, there are at least $r$ distinct indices $i$ such that $x_i = y_i$. We determine the maximum value of $|A|\cdot|B|$ over all pairs of $r$- cross-intersecting families and characterize the extremal pairs for $r \ge 1$, provided that $\min p_i >r+1$. The case $\min p_i \le r+1$ is quite different. For this case, we have a conjecture, which we can verify under additional assumptions. Our results generalize and strengthen several previous results by Berge, Frankl, Füredi, Livingston, Moon, and Tokushige, and answers a question of Zhang.

\section{Introduction}

The Erd\H os-Ko-Rado theorem~\cite{EKR61} states that for $n\geq 2k$, every family  of pairwise intersecting $k$-element subsets of an $n$-element set consists of at most ${n-1\choose k-1}$ subsets, as many as the star-like family of all subsets containing a fixed element of the underlying set. This was the starting point of a whole new area within combinatorics: extremal set theory; see~\cite{GK78}, \cite{Bol86}, \cite{DeF83}, \cite{F95}. The Erd\H os-Ko-Rado theorem has been extended and generalized to other structures: to multisets, divisors of an integer, subspaces of a vector space, families of permutations, etc. It was also generalized to ``cross-intersecting" families, i.e., to families $A$ and $B$ with the property that every element of $A$ intersects all elements of $B$; see Hilton~\cite{Hi77}, Moon~\cite{Mo82}, and Pyber~\cite{Py86}.

\smallskip

For any positive integer $k$, we write $[k]$ for the set $\{1,\dots,k\}$. Given a sequence of positive integers $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$, let
$$S_p=[p_1]\times\cdots\times[p_n]=\{(x_1,\dots,x_n)\; :\; x_i\in[p_i]\hbox{ for }i\in[n]\}.$$
We will refer to the elements of $S_p$ as {\em vectors}. The {\em Hamming
  distance} between the vectors $x,y\in S_p$ is $|\{i\in[n]\;:\; x_i\ne y_i\}|$
and is denoted by $d(x,y)$. Let $r\ge1$ be an
integer. Two vectors $x,y\in
S_p$ are said to be {\em $r$-intersecting} if $d(x,y)\le n-r$. (This term
originates in the
observation that if we represent a vector $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in S_p$ by the
set $\{(i,x_i)\; :\; i\in[n]\}$, then $x$ and $y\in S_p$ are $r$-intersecting if
and only if the sets representing them have at least $r$ common elements.)
Two families $A,B\subseteq S_p$ are {\em $r$-cross-intersecting}, if every
pair $x\in A$, $y\in B$ is $r$-intersecting. If $(A,A)$ is an
$r$-cross-intersecting pair, we say $A$ is {\em $r$-intersecting}. We simply say {\em
  intersecting} or {\em cross-intersecting} to mean $1$-intersecting or
$1$-cross-intersecting, respectively.
\smallskip

The investigation of the maximum value for $|A|\cdot|B|$ for cross-intersecting pairs of families $A,B\subseteq S_p$ was initiated by Moon~\cite{Mo82}. She proved, using a clever induction argument, that in the special case when  $p_1=p_2=\dots=p_n=k$ for some $k\ge 3$, every cross-intersecting pair $A,B\subseteq S_p$ satisfies
$$|A|\cdot|B|\le k^{2n-2},$$
with equality if and only if $A=B=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x_i=j\}$, for some $i\in[n]$ and $j\in[k]$.  In the case $A=B$, Moon's theorem had been discovered by Berge~\cite{Be74}, Livingston~\cite{Liv79}, and Borg~\cite{Bo08}. See also Stanton~\cite{St80}. In his report on Livingston's paper, published in the {\em Mathematical Reviews}, Kleitman gave an extremely short proof for the case $A=B$, based on a shifting argument. Zhang~\cite{Zh13} established a somewhat weaker result, using a generalization of Katona's circle method~\cite{K72}. Note that for $k=2$, we can take $A=B$ to be any family of $2^{n-1}$ vectors without containing a pair $(x_1,\ldots,x_n), (y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ with $x_i+y_i=3$ for every $i$. Then $A$ is an intersecting family with $|A|^2=2^{2n-2}$, which is not of the type described in Moon's theorem.

Moon also considered $r$-cross-intersecting pairs in $S_p$ with $p_1=p_2=\dots=p_n=k$ for some $k > r+1$, and characterized all pairs for which $|A|\cdot|B|$ attains its maximum, that is, we have
$$|A|\cdot|B|= k^{2(n-r)}.$$
The assumption $k>r+1$ is necessary. See Tokushige~\cite{To13}, for a somewhat weaker result, using algebraic techniques.

\smallskip

Zhang~\cite{Zh13} suggested that Moon's results may be extended to arbitrary
sequences of positive integers $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$. The aim of this note is
twofold: (1) to establish such an extension under the assumption $\min_i p_i > r+1$,
and (2) to formulate a conjecture that covers essentially all
other interesting cases. We verify this conjecture in several special cases.

We start with the special case $r=1$, which has also been settled independently by Borg~\cite{Bo14}, using different techniques.

\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Theorem 1.} {\em Let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a sequence positive integers
  and let $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a pair of cross-intersecting families of
  vectors.

  We have $|A|\cdot|B|\le|S_p|^2/k^2$, where $k=\min_ip_i$. Equality holds for
  the case $A=B=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x_i=j\}$, whenever $i\in[n]$ satisfies $p_i=k$
  and $j\in[k]$. For $k\ne2$, there are no other extremal cross-intersecting
  families.}
\medskip

We say that a coordinate $i\in[n]$ is {\em irrelevant} for a set $A\subseteq
S_p$ if, whenever two elements of $S_p$ differ only in coordinate $i$ and $A$
contains one of them, it also contains the other. Otherwise, we say that $i$
is {\em relevant} for $A$.

Note that no coordinate $i$ with $p_i=1$ can be relevant for any family. Each such
coordinate forces an intersection between every pair of vectors. So, if we
delete it, every $r$-cross-intersecting pair becomes $(r-1)$-cross-intersecting.
Therefore, from now on we will always assume that we have
$p_i\ge2$ for every $i$.

We call a sequence of integers
$p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ a {\em size vector} if $p_i\ge2$ for all $i$. The {\em
length} of $p$ is $n$.
We say that an $r$-cross-intersecting pair $A,B\subseteq
S_p$ is {\em maximal} if it maximizes the value $|A|\cdot|B|$.

\smallskip
Using this notation and terminology, Theorem~1 can be rephrased as follows.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf Theorem 1'.}
{\em Let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a sequence of integers with $k=\min_ip_i>2$.

For any maximal pair of cross-intersecting families,
$A,B\subseteq S_p$, we have $A=B$, and there is a single coordinate which is
relevant for $A$. The relevant coordinate $i$ must satisfy $p_i=k$.}
\medskip

See Section~\ref{cr} for a complete characterization of maximal
cross-intersecting pairs in the $k=2$ case. Here we mention that only the
coordinates with $p_i=2$ can be relevant for them, but
for certain pairs, {\em all} such coordinates are relevant
simultaneously. For example, let $n$ be odd, $p=(2,\ldots,2)$, and let $A=B$
consist of all vectors in $S_p$ which have at most $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$
coordinates that are $1$. This makes $(A,B)$ a maximal cross-intersecting pair.

\smallskip

Let $T\subseteq[n]$ be a subset of the coordinates, let $x_0\in S_p$ be an
arbitrary vector, and let $k$ be an integer satisfying $0\le k\le|T|$. The {\em Hamming ball} of
radius $k$ around $x_0$ in the coordinates $T$ is defined as the family
$$B_k=\{x\in S_p\; :\;|\{i\in T\; :\; x_i\ne(x_0)_i\}|\le k\}.$$
Note that the pair $(B_k,B_l)$ is
$(|T|-k-l)$-cross-intersecting. We use the word {\em ball} to refer to any
Hamming ball without specifying its center, radius
or its set of coordinates. A Hamming ball of radius $0$ in coordinates $T$ is
said to be obtained by {\em fixing} the coordinates in $T$.

For the proof of Theorem~1, we need the following statement, which will be established by induction on $n$, using the idea in~\cite{Mo82}.

\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Lemma 2.} {\em Let $1\le r<n$, let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size
  vector satisfying $3\le p_1\le p_2\le\cdots\le p_n$ and let
  $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families. If
  $$\frac{2}{p_{r+1}}+\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i}\le1,$$
  then
  $|A|\cdot|B|\le\prod_{i=r+1}^np_i^2$. In case of equality, we have
  $A=B$ and this family can be obtained by fixing $r$ coordinates in
  $S_p$.}
\medskip

By fixing any $r$ coordinates, we obtain a ``trivial'' $r$-intersecting
family $A=B\subseteq S_p$. As was observed by Frankl and F\"uredi \cite{FF80}, not all maximal size $r$-intersecting families can be obtained in this way, for certain size vectors. They considered size vectors $p=(k,\ldots,k)$
with $n\ge r+2$ coordinates, and noticed that a Hamming ball of radius $1$ in $r+2$ coordinates is $r$-intersecting. Moreover, for $k\le r$, this family is strictly larger than the trivial $r$-intersecting family. See also~\cite{AhK98}.

On the other hand, as was mentioned before, for $k\ge r+2$, Moon \cite{Mo82} proved that among all $r$-intersecting families, the trivial ones are maximal.

\smallskip

This leaves open only the case $k=r+1$, where the trivial $r$-intersecting
families and the radius $1$ balls in $r+2$ coordinates have precisely the same
size. We believe that in this case there are no larger $r$-intersecting
families. For $r=1$, it can be and has been easily verified (and follows, for
example, from our Theorem~1, which deals with the asymmetric case, when $A$
and $B$ do not necessarily coincide). Our Theorem~7 settles the problem also
for $r>3$. The intermediate cases $r=2$ or $3$ are still open, but they could possibly be handled by computer search.

\smallskip

Therefore, to characterize maximal size $r$-intersecting families $A$ or
maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pairs of families $(A,B)$ for {\em all} size
vectors, we cannot restrict ourselves to fixing $r$ coordinates. We make the
following conjecture that can roughly be considered as a generalization of the
Frankl-F\"uredi conjecture \cite{FF80} that has been proved by Frankl and Tokushige \cite{FT99}. The
generalization is twofold: we consider $r$-cross-intersecting pairs rather
than $r$-intersecting families and we allow arbitrary size vectors not just
vectors with all-equal coordinates.
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Conjecture 3.} {\em If $1\le r\le n$ and $p$ is a size
  vector of length $n$, then there exists a maximal pair of
  $r$-cross-intersecting families $A,B\subseteq S_p$, where $A$ and $B$ are
  balls. If we further have $p_i\ge3$ for all $i\in[n]$, then all maximal
  pairs of $r$-cross-intersecting families consist of balls.}
\medskip

Note that the $r=1$ special case of Conjecture~3 is established by
Theorem~1. Some further special cases of the conjecture are settled in Theorem~7.

It is not hard to narrow down the range of possibilities for maximal
$r$-cross-intersecting
pairs that are formed by two balls, $A$ and $B$. In fact, the following theorem
implies that all such pairs are determined up to isomorphism by the
number of relevant coordinates. Assuming that Conjecture~3 is true, finding
$\max|A|\cdot|B|$ for $r$-cross-intersecting families $A,B\subseteq S_p$ boils
down to making numeric comparisons for pairs of balls obtained by various radii. In case $p_i\ge3$ for all $i$ (and still assuming
Conjecture~3), the same process also finds all maximal $r$-cross-intersecting
pairs.
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Theorem 4.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$ and let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size
  vector. If $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting
  families, then either of them determines the other. In particular, $A$ and
  $B$ have the same set of relevant coordinates. Moreover, if $A$ is a ball of radius
  $l$ around $x_0\in S_p$ in a set of coordinates $T\subseteq[n]$, then
  $|T|\ge l+r$, and $B$ is a ball of radius $|T|-l-r$ around $x_0$ in the same set
  of the coordinates. Furthermore, we have $p_i\le p_j$ for every $i\in T$ and
  $j\in[n]\setminus T$, and the radii of the balls differ by at most 1, that is,
  $\big||T|-2l-r\big|\le1$.
}
\medskip

Note that if $A=B$ for a maximal pair $(A,B)$ of $r$-cross-intersecting
families, then $A$ is also a maximal size $r$-intersecting family. This is the
case, in particular, if $A$ and $B$ are balls of equal radii. However, for many size
vectors, no maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair consists of $r$-intersecting families, as the maximal $r$-cross-intersecting
pairs are often formed by balls whose radii differ by one. For example, for the size
vector $p=(3,3,3,3,3)$, the largest $4$-intersecting family $C$ is obtained by
fixing four coordinates, while the maximal $4$-cross-intersecting pair is formed
by a singleton $A=\{x\}$ and a ball $B$ of radius $1$ around $x$ in all
coordinates. Here we have $|A|\cdot|B|=11>|C|^2=9$.

As we have indicated above, we have been unable to prove Conjecture~3 in its full generality, but we were able to verify it
in several interesting special cases. We will proceed in two steps. First we argue, using {\em entropies}, that the number of relevant coordinates in a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting family is bounded. Then we apply combinatorial methods to prove the conjecture under the assumption that the number of relevant coordinates is small.

In the case where there are many relevant coordinates for a pair of maximal
$r$-cross-intersecting families, we use entropies to bound the size of the
families and to prove

\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Theorem 5.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$, let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size
  vector, let $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting
  families, and let $T$ be the set of coordinates that are relevant for $A$ or
  $B$. Then neither the size of $A$ nor the size of $B$ can exceed
$$\frac{|S_p|}{\prod_{i\in T}(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}}.$$
}
\medskip

We use this theorem to bound the number of relevant coordinates $i$ with
$p_i>2$. The number of relevant coordinates $i$ with $p_i=2$ can be unbounded; see Section~5.

\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Theorem 6.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$, let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size
  vector, and let $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal pair of
  $r$-cross-intersecting families.

  For the set of coordinates $T$ relevant for
  $A$ or $B$, we have $$\prod_{i=1}^rp_i\ge\prod_{i\in T}(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i},$$
  which implies that $|\{i\in T\; :\; p_i>2\}|<5r$.}
\medskip

We can characterize the maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pairs for
all size vectors $p$ satisfying $\min p_i>r+1$, and in many other cases.
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Theorem 7.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$, let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size
  vector with $p_1\le p_2\le\cdots\le p_n$, and let $A,B\subseteq
  S_p$ form a pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families.
\begin{enumerate}
\item  If $p_1>r+1$,
  we have $|A|\cdot|B|\le\prod_{i=r+1}^np_i^2$. In case of equality,
  $A=B$ holds and this family can be obtained by fixing $r$ coordinates in $S_p$.
\item If $p_1=r+1>4$, we have $|A|\cdot|B|\le\prod_{i=r+1}^np_i^2$. In case of equality,
  $A=B$ holds and this family can be obtained either by fixing
  $r$ coordinates in $S_p$ or by taking a Hamming ball of radius $1$ in
  $r+2$ coordinates $i$, all satisfying $p_i=r+1$.
\item There is a function $t(r)=r/2+o(r)$ such that if $p_1\ge t(r)$ and
  $(A,B)$ is a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair,
  then the families $A$ and $B$ are balls in at most $r+3$
  coordinates.
\end{enumerate}}
\medskip

The proof of Theorem~7 relies on the following result.

\bigskip
\bigskip
\noindent
{\bf Theorem 8.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$ and let
  $p$ be a size vector of length $n$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there exists a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families in
  $S_P$ with at most $r+2$ relevant coordinates,
  then there exists such a pair consisting of balls.
\item If $p_i>2$ for all $i\in[n]$ and
  $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families
  with at most $r+3$ relevant coordinates, then $A$ and $B$ are balls.
\end{enumerate}}
\medskip

With an involved case analysis, it may be possible to extend Theorem~8 to
pairs with more relevant coordinates. Any such an improvement would carry
over to Theorem~7.

All of our results remain meaningful in the symmetric case where $A=B$. For instance, in
this case, Theorem~1 (also proved by Borg \cite{Bo14}) states that every intersecting family $A\subseteq S_p$
has at most $|S_p|/k$ members, where $k=\min_ip_i$. In case $k>2$,
equality can be achieved only by fixing some coordinate $i$ with $p_i=k$. Note
that in the case $A=B$ (i.e., $r$-intersecting families) the exact maximum
size is known for size vectors $(q,\ldots,q)$, \cite{FT99}.

\section{Proofs of Theorems 4 and 1}

First, we verify Theorem~4 and a technical lemma (see Lemma~9 below) which generalizes the corresponding result in~\cite{Mo82}. Our proof is slightly simpler. Lemma~9 will enable us to deduce Lemma~2, the main ingredient of the proof of Theorem~1, presented at the end of the section.

\medskip
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem 4.} The first statement is self-evident: if $A,B\subseteq
S_p$ form a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families, then
$$B=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x\hbox{ $r$-intersects $y$ for all }y\in A\}.$$
If a coordinate is irrelevant for $A$, then it is also irrelevant for $B$ defined by this formula. Therefore, by symmetry, $A$ and $B$ have the same set of relevant coordinates.

If $A$ is the Hamming ball around $x_0$ of radius $l$ in
coordinates $T$, then we have $B=\emptyset$ if $|T|<l+r$, which is not
possible for a maximal cross-intersecting family. If $|T|\ge l+r$, we obtain
the ball claimed in the theorem. For every $i\in T$, $j\in[n]\setminus T$,
consider the set $T'=(T\setminus\{i\})\cup\{j\}$ and the Hamming balls $A'$
and $B'$ of radii $l$ and $|T|-l-r$ around $x_0$ in the coordinates
$T'$. These balls form an $r$-cross-intersecting pair and in case $p_i>p_j$, we
have $|A'|>|A|$ and $|B'|>|B|$, contradicting the maximality of the pair
$(A,B)$.

Finally let $B_l$ be a ball of radius $l$ around some fixed vector $x$ in
a fixed set $T$ of coordinates. We claim that the size $|B_l|$ of these balls
is strictly log-concave, that is, we have
$$|B_l|^2>|B_{l-1}|\cdot|B_{l+1}|$$
for $1\le l<|T|$. As balls around different centers have the same size, we can
represent the left-hand side as $|B_l|^2=|C|$, where
$$C=\{(y,z)\mid y,z\in S_p, d(x,y)\le l,d(y,z)\le l\}.$$
Similarly, the right-hand side can be
represented as $|B_{l-1}|\cdot|B_{l+1}|=|D|$ with
$$D=\{(y,z)\mid y,z\in S_p,d(x,y)\le l-1,d(y,z)\le l+1\}.$$

We say that two pairs $(y,z)$ and $(y',z')$ (all four terms from $S_p$)
are {\em equivalent} if $z=z'$ and for every $i\in[n]$ we have either
$y_i=y'_i$ or $y_i,y'_i\in\{x_i,z_i\}$. Let us fix an equivalence class
$O$. For all $(y,z)\in O$, the element $z$ and some
coordinates $y_i$ of $y$ are {\em fixed}. We call the remaining coordinates $i$ {\em
open}. For an open coordinate $i$, the value of $y_i$ must be one of the
non-equal values $x_i$ or $z_i$. If $m$ denotes the number of open
coordinates in $O$, we have $|O|=2^m$. For a pair $(y,z)\in O$, the
distance $d(x,y)=d_1+d_2(y)$, where $d_1$ is the number of fixed
coordinates $i$ with $x_i\ne y_i$, while $d_2(y)$ is the number of open
coordinates $i$ with $x_i\ne y_i$. Note that $d_1$ is constant for all
elements of $O$, while $d_2(y)$ takes any value $j$ for $m\choose j$ members
of $O$. Similarly, we can write $d(y,z)=d_1+(m-d_2(y))$, as $y_i\ne z_i$ holds
for the same fixed coordinates where $x_i\ne y_i$, and $y_i$ is equal to
exactly one of $x_i$ and $z_i$ for an open coordinate $i$. Summarizing, we
have
$$C\cap O=\{(y,z)\in O\mid d_1+m-l\le d_2(y)\le l-d_1\},$$
$$D\cap O=\{(y,z)\in O\mid d_1+m-l-1\le d_2(y)\le l-d_1-1\}.$$
We claim that $|C\cap O|\ge|D\cap O|$. Indeed, if $l-d_1<m/2$, then $C\cap
O=D\cap O=\emptyset$. Otherwise, we have $|C\cap O|-|D\cap O|={m\choose
  l-d_1}-{m\choose l-d_1+1}\ge0$. Note also that equality holds only if
$l-d_1<m/2$ or $l-d_1>m$, in which cases $C$ and $D$ are disjoint from $O$ or
contain $O$, respectively.

As $C$ contains at least as many pairs from every equivalence class as $D$
does, we have $|C|\ge|D|$. Equality cannot hold for all equivalence classes, so
we have $|C|>|D|$, as claimed.

To finish the proof of the theorem, we need to verify that the pair
$(B_{l_1},B_{l_2})$ is not maximal $r$-cross-intersecting if $r=|T|-l_1-l_2$
and $|l_1-l_2|\ge2$. This follows from the log-concavity, because in case $l_1\ge
l_2+2$ the pair $(B_{l_1-1},B_{l_2+1})$ is also $r$-cross-intersecting and $|B_{l_1-1}|\cdot|B_{l_2+1}|>|B_{l_1}|\cdot|B_{l_2}|$.
\qed

\medskip

The following lemma will also be used in the proof of Theorem~5, presented in the next section.

\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Lemma 9.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$, let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size vector, and let $A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families.

If $i\in[n]$ is a relevant coordinate for $A$ or $B$, then there exists a value $l\in[p_i]$ such that
$$|\{x\in A\; :\; x_i\ne l\}|\le|A|/p_i,$$
$$|\{y\in B\; :\; y_i\ne l\}|\le|B|/p_i.$$
}
\medskip

\noindent
{\em Proof.} Let us fix $r, n, p, i, A,$ and $B$ as in the
lemma. By Theorem~4, if a coordinate is irrelevant for $A$, then
it is also irrelevant for $B$ and vice versa.

In the case $n=r$, we have $A=B$ and this family must be a singleton, so the lemma is trivially true. From now on, we assume that $n>r$ and hence the notion of $r$-cross-intersecting families is meaningful for $n-1$ coordinates.

Let $q=(p_1,\ldots,p_{i-1},p_{i+1},\ldots,p_n)$. For any $l\in[p_i]$, let
$$A'_l=\{x\in A\; :\; x_i=l\},$$
$$B'_l=\{y\in B\; :\; y_i=l\},$$
and let $A_l$ and $B_l$ stand for the families obtained from $A'_l$ and $B'_l$, respectively, by dropping their $i$\/th coordinates. By definition, we have $A_l,B_l\subseteq S_q$, and $|A|=\sum_l|A_l|$ and $|B|=\sum_l|B_l|$. Furthermore, for any two distinct elements $l,m\in[p_i],$ the families $A_l$ and $B_m$ are $r$-cross-intersecting, since the vectors in $A'_l$ differ from the vectors in $B'_m$ in the $i$\/th coordinate, and therefore the $r$ indices where they agree must be elsewhere.

Let $Z$ denote the maximum product $|A^*|\cdot|B^*|$ of an
$r$-cross-intersecting pair $A^*,B^*\subseteq S_q$. We have
$|A_l|\cdot|B_m|\le Z$ for all
$l,m\in[p_i]$ with $l\ne m$. Adding an irrelevant $i$\/th coordinate to the
maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair $A^*,B^*\subseteq S_q$, we obtain a pair
$A^{*\prime},B^{*\prime}\subseteq S_p$ with
$|A^{*\prime}|\cdot|B^{*\prime}|=p_i^2Z$. Using the maximality of $A$ and
$B$, we have $|A|\cdot|B|\ge p_i^2Z$. Let $l_0$ be chosen so as to maximize
$|A_{l_0}|\cdot |B_{l_0}|$, and let $c=|A_{l_0}|\cdot|B_{l_0}|/Z$.

Assume first that $c\le1$. Then we have
$$p_i^2Z\le|A|\cdot|B|=\sum_{l,m\in[p_i]}|A_l|\cdot|B_m|
\le\sum_{l,m\in[p_i]}Z=p_i^2Z.$$
Hence, we must have equality everywhere. This yields that $c=1$ and that $A_l$ and
$B_m$ form a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair for all
$l,m\in[p_i]$, $l\ne m$. This also implies that $|A_l|=|A_m|$ for $l,m\in[p_i]$, from where
the statement of the lemma follows, provided that $p_i=2$.

If $p_i\ge3$, then all families $A_l$ must be equal to one another, since one member in a maximal
$r$-cross-intersecting family determines the other, by Theorem~4. This contradicts our
assumption that the $i$\/th coordinate was relevant for $A$.

Thus, we may assume that $c>1$.
\smallskip

For $m\in[p_i]$, $m\ne l_0$, we have
$|A_{l_0}|\cdot|B_m|\le Z=|A_{l_0}|\cdot|B_{l_0}|/c$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}
|B_m|\le|B_{l_0}|/c,
\end{equation}
which yields that
$|B|=\sum_{m\in[p_i]}|B_m|\le(1+(p_i-1)/c)|B_{l_0}|$. By symmetry, we also
have
\begin{equation}\label{eq0b}
|A_m|\le|A_{l_0}|/c
\end{equation}
for $m\ne l_0$ and $|A|\le(1+(p_i-1)/c)|A_{l_0}|$. Combining these inequalities, we obtain
$$p_i^2Z\le|A|\cdot|B|\le(1+(p_n-1)/c)^2|A_{l_0}|\cdot|B_{l_0}|=(1+(p_i-1)/c)^2cZ.$$
We solve the resulting inequality $p_i^2\le c(1+(p_i-1)/c)^2$ for
$c>1$ and conclude that $c\ge(p_i-1)^2$. This inequality, together with Equations
(\ref{eq0}) and (\ref{eq0b}), completes the proof of Lemma~9. \qed

\medskip

\noindent
{\em Proof of Lemma 2.} We proceed by induction on $n$.

Let $A$ and $B$ form a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair. It is sufficient to
show that they have only $r$ relevant coordinates. Let us suppose that
the set $T$ of their relevant coordinates satisfies $|T|>r$, and choose a subset
$T'\subseteq T$ with $|T'|=r+1$. By Lemma~9, for every $i\in T'$ there exists
$l_i\in[p_i]$ such that the family $X_i=\{x\in B\; :\; x_i\ne l_i\}$ has cardinality $|X_i|\le|B|/p_i$.

If we assume that
$$\frac{2}{p_{r+1}}+\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i}<1$$
holds (with strict inequality), then this bound of $|X_i|$ would suffice.
In order to also be able to deal with the case
$$\frac{2}{p_{r+1}}+\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i}=1,$$
we show that $|X_i|=|B|/p_i$ is not possible. Considering the proof of
Lemma~9, equality here would mean that the families $A_l$ and $B_l$ (obtained
by dropping the $i$\/th coordinate from the vectors in the sets $\{x\in A\;
:\; x_i=l\}$ and $\{y\in B\; :\; y_i=l\}$, respectively) satisfy the following
condition: both $(A_{l_i},B_m)$ and
$(A_m,B_{l_i})$ should be maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pairs for all $m\ne
l_i$. By the induction hypothesis, this would imply that $A_{l_i}=B_m$ and
$A_m=B_{l_i}$, contradicting that $|A_m|<|A_{l_i}|$ and $|B_m|<|B_{l_i}|$ (see
(\ref{eq0}), in view of $c>1$). Therefore, we have $|X_i|<|B|/p_i$.

Let $C=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x_i=1\hbox{ for all }i\in[r]\}$ be the $r$-intersecting
family obtained by fixing $r$ coordinates in $S_p$.
In the family $D=B\setminus(\bigcup_{i\in T'}X_i)$, the coordinates in $T'$
are fixed. Thus, we have $$|D|\le\prod_{i\in[n]\setminus
T'}p_i\le\prod_{i=r+2}^np_i=|C|/p_{r+1}.$$
On the other hand, we have
$$|D|=|B|-\sum_{i\in T'}|X_i|>|B|(1-\sum_{i\in T'}1/p_i)\ge|B|(1-\sum_{i=1}^{r+1}1/p_i).$$
Comparing the last two inequalities, we obtain
$$|B|<\frac{|C|}{p_{r+1}(1-\sum_{i=1}^{r+1}1/p_i)}.$$
By our assumption on $p$, the denominator is at least $1$, so that we have
$|B|<|C|$. By symmetry, we also have $|A|<|C|$. Thus, $|A|\cdot|B|<|C|^2$
contradicting the maximality of the pair $(A,B)$. This completes the proof of
Lemma~2. \qed
\medskip

Now we can quickly finish the proof of Theorem~1.

\medskip
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem~1.} Notice that Lemma~2 implies Theorem~1, whenever
$k=\min_ip_i\ge3$. It remains to verify the statement for $k=1$ and $k=2$.
For $k=1$, it follows from the fact that all pairs of vectors in $S_p$ are
intersecting, thus the only maximal cross-intersecting pair is $A=B=S_p$.

Suppose next that $k=2$. For $x\in S_p$, let $x'\in S_p$ be defined
by $x'_i=(x_i+1\bmod p_i)$ for $i\in[n]$.
Note that $x\mapsto x'$ is a permutation of  $S_p$.
Clearly, $x$ and $x'$ are not intersecting, so we either
have $x\notin A$ or $x'\notin B$. As a
consequence, we obtain that $|A|+|B|\le|S_p|$, which, in turn, implies that
$|A|\cdot|B|\le|S_p|^2/4$, as claimed. It also follows that all maximal
pairs satisfy $|A|=|B|=|S_p|/2$. \qed

\section{Using entropy: Proofs of Theorems~5 and~6}

\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem~5.} Let $r, n, p, A, B$ and $T$ be as in the theorem. Let
us write $y$ for a randomly and uniformly selected element of $B$.
Lemma~9 implies that, for each $i\in T$, there exists a value $l_i\in[p_i]$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
Pr[y_i=l_i]\ge1-1/p_i.
\end{equation}

We bound the {\em entropy} $H(y_i)$ of $y_i$ from above by the entropy of the indicator variable of the event $y_i=l_i$ plus the contribution coming from the entropy of $y_i$ assuming $y_i\ne l_i$:
$$H(y_i)\le h(1-1/p_i)+(1/p_i)\log(p_i-1)=\log p_i-(1-2/p_i)\log(p_i-1),$$
where $h(z)=-z\log z-(1-z)\log(1-z)$ is the entropy function, and we used that $1-1/p_i\ge1/2$.

For any $i\in[n]\setminus T$, we use the trivial estimate $H(y_i)\le\log p_i$. By the subadditivity of the entropy, we obtain
$$\log|B|=H(y)\le\sum_{i\in[n]}H(y_i)\le\sum_{i\in T}(\log
p_i-(1-2/p_i)\log(p_i-1))+\sum_{i\in[n]\setminus T}\log p_i,$$
or, equivalently,
$$|B|\le\prod_{i\in T}\frac{p_i}{(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}}\prod_{i\in[n]\setminus
  T}p_i=\frac{|S_p|}{\prod_{i\in T}(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}}$$
as required. The bound on $|A|$ follows by symmetry and completes the proof of
the theorem. \qed
\medskip

Theorem~6 is a simple corollary of Theorem~5.

\medskip
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem~6.}
Fixing the first $r$ coordinates, we obtain the family
$$C=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x_i=1\hbox{ for all }i\in[r]\}.$$
This family is $r$-intersecting. Thus, by the maximality of the pair $(A,B)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
|A|\cdot|B|\ge|C|^2=\left(\prod_{i=r+1}^np_i\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Comparing this with our upper bounds on $|A|$ and $|B|$, we obtain the
inequality claimed in the theorem.

To prove the required bound on the number of relevant coordinates $i$ with
$p_i\ne2$, we assume that the coordinates are ordered, that is, $p_1\le
p_2\le\cdots\le p_n$. Applying the above estimate on $\prod_{i\in[r]}p_i$
and using $(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}>p_i^{1/5}$ whenever $p_i\ge3$, the theorem
follows. \qed

\section{Monotone families: Proofs of Theorems~8 and~7}

Given a vector $x\in S_p$, the set ${\mbox{supp}}(x)=\{i\in[n] : x_i>1\}$ is called the
{\em support} of $x$. A family $A\subseteq S_p$ is said to be {\em monotone}, if for any
$x\in A$ and $y\in S_p$ satisfying ${\mbox{supp}}(y)\subseteq{\mbox{supp}}(x)$, we have $y\in A$.

For a family $A\subseteq S_p$, let us define its {\em support} as
${\mbox{supp}}(A)=\{{\mbox{supp}}(x)\; :\; x\in A\}$. For a monotone family $A$, its support is
clearly subset-closed and it uniquely determines $A$, as $A=\{x\in
S_p\, :\,{\mbox{supp}}(x)\in{\mbox{supp}}(A)\}$.
\medskip

The next result shows that if we want to prove Conjecture~3, it is sufficient to prove it for monotone families. This will enable us to establish Theorems~8 and~7, that is, to verify the conjecture for maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pairs with a limited number of relevant
coordinates. Note that similar reduction to monotone families appears also in
\cite{FF80}.

\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Lemma 10.} {\em Let $1\le r\le n$ and let $p$ be a size vector of length
$n$.

There exists a maximal pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families $A,B\subseteq S_p$ such that both $A$ and $B$ are monotone.

If $p_i\ge3$ for all $i\in[n]$, and $A,B\subseteq S_p$ are maximal $r$-cross-intersecting families that are {\em not} balls, then there exists a pair of maximal $r$-cross-intersecting families that consists of monotone families that are not balls and have no more relevant coordinates than
$A$ or $B$.}
\medskip

\noindent
{\em Proof.} Consider the following {\em shift operations}. For any $i\in[n]$ and
$j\in[p_i]\setminus\{1\}$, for any family $A\subseteq S_p$ and any element $x\in A$, we define
\begin{align*}
\phi_i(x)&=(x_1,\dots,x_{i-1},1,x_{i+1},\dots,x_n),\\
\phi_{i,j}(x,A)&=\begin{cases}\phi_i(x)&\mbox{if }x_i=j\mbox{ and }\phi_i(x)\notin A\\x&\mbox{otherwise,}\end{cases}\\
\phi_{i,j}(A)&=\{\phi_{i,j}(x,A)\; :\; x\in A\}.
\end{align*}
Clearly, we have $|\phi_{i,j}(A)|=|A|$ for any family $A\subseteq S_p$. We claim that for
any pair of $r$-cross-intersecting families $A,B\subseteq S_p$, the families $\phi_{i,j}(A)$ and
$\phi_{i,j}(B)$ are also $r$-cross-intersecting. Indeed, if $x\in A$ and
$y\in B$ are $r$-intersecting vectors, then $\phi_{i,j}(x,A)$ and
$\phi_{i,j}(y,B)$ are also $r$-intersecting, unless $x$ and $y$ have exactly
$r$ common coordinates, one of them is $x_i=y_i=j$, and this common coordinate
gets ruined as $\phi_{i,j}(x,A)=x$ and $\phi_{i,j}(y,B)=\phi_i(y)$ (or vice
versa). However,
this is impossible, because this would imply that the vector $\phi_i(x)$ belongs to $A$, in spite of the fact that $\phi_i(x)$ and $y\in B$ are not $r$-intersecting.

If $(A,B)$ is a {\em maximal} $r$-cross-intersecting pair, then so is
$(\phi_{i,j}(A),\phi_{i,j}(B))$. When applying one of these shift operations
changes either of the families $A$ or $B$, then the total sum of all coordinates of all elements decreases. Therefore,
after shifting a finite number of times we arrive at a maximal pair of
$r$-intersecting families that cannot be changed by further shifting. We claim that
this pair $(A,B)$ is monotone. Let $y\in B$ and $y'\in S_p\setminus B$ be
arbitrary. We show that $B$ is monotone by showing that ${\mbox{supp}}(y')$ is not
contained in ${\mbox{supp}}(y)$. Indeed, by the maximality of the pair $(A,B)$ and using the fact that
$y'\notin B,$ there must exist $x'\in A$ such that $x'$ and $y'$ are not
$r$-cross-intersecting, and hence
$|{\mbox{supp}}(x')\cup{\mbox{supp}}(y')|>n-r$. Applying ``projections'' $\phi_i$ to
$x'$ in the coordinates $i\in{\mbox{supp}}(x')\cap{\mbox{supp}}(y)$, we obtain $x$ with
${\mbox{supp}}(x)={\mbox{supp}}(x')\setminus{\mbox{supp}}(y)$. The shift operations $\phi_{i,j}$
do not change the family $A$, thus $A$ must be closed for the projections
$\phi_i$ and we have $x\in A$. The
supports of $x$ and $y$ are disjoint. Thus, their Hamming distance is
$|{\mbox{supp}}(x)\cup{\mbox{supp}}(y)|$, which is at most $n-r$, as they are
$r$-intersecting. Therefore, ${\mbox{supp}}(x)\cup{\mbox{supp}}(y)={\mbox{supp}}(x')\cup{\mbox{supp}}(y)$ is smaller
than ${\mbox{supp}}(x')\cup{\mbox{supp}}(y')$, showing that ${\mbox{supp}}(y')\not\subseteq{\mbox{supp}}(y)$. This
proves that $B$ is monotone. By symmetry, $A$ is also monotone,
which proves the first claim of the lemma.
\smallskip

To prove the second claim, assume that $p_i\ge3$ for all $i\in[n]$. Note that
Theorem~1 establishes the lemma in the case $r=1$, so from now on we can assume without loss of generality that
$r\ge2$. Let
$A,B\subseteq S_p$ form a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair. By the previous
paragraph, this pair can be transformed into a monotone pair by repeated
applications of the shift
operations $\phi_{i,j}$. Clearly, these operations do not introduce new
relevant coordinates. It remains to check that the shifting operations do not
produce balls from non-balls, that is, if $A,B\subseteq S_p$ are
maximal $r$-cross-intersecting families, and $A'=\phi_{i,j}(A)$ and
$B'=\phi_{i,j}(B)$ are balls, then so are $A$ and $B$. In fact, by Theorem~4
it is sufficient to prove that one of them is a ball.
\smallskip

We saw that $A'$ and
$B'$ must also form a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair. Thus, by Theorem~4, there
is a set of coordinates $T\subseteq[n]$, a vector $x_0\in S_p$, and
radii $l$ and $m$ satisfying $|T|=r+l+m$ and that $A'$ and $B'$ are the
Hamming balls of radius $l$ and $m$ in coordinates $T$ around the vector
$x_0$. We can assume that $i\in T$, because otherwise $A=A'$ and we are done.
We also have that $(x_0)_i=1$, as otherwise $A'=\phi_{i,j}(A)$ is impossible.
The vectors $x\in S_p$ such that $x_i=j$ and
$$|\{k\in T\, :\, x_k\ne(x_0)_k\}|=l+1$$
are called {\em  $A$-critical}. Analogously, the vectors $y\in S_p$ such that $y_i=j$ and $$|\{k\in T\, :\,y_k\ne(x_0)_k\}|=m+1$$
are said to be {\em $B$-critical}. By the definition of
$\phi_{i,j}$, the family $A$ differs from $A'$ by including some
$A$-critical vectors $x$ and losing the corresponding vectors
$\phi_i(x)$. Symmetrically, $B\setminus B'$ consists of some $B$-critical vectors
$y$ and $B'\setminus B$ consists of the corresponding vectors $\phi_i(y)$.
Let us consider the bipartite graph $G$ whose vertices on one side are the
$A$-critical vectors $x$, the vertices on the other side are the $B$-critical
vectors $y$ (considered as disjoint families, even if $l=m$), and $x$ is
adjacent to $y$ if and only if
$|\{k\in[n]\, :\, x_k=y_k\}|=r$. If $x$ and $y$ are
adjacent, then neither the pair $(x,\phi_i(y))$, nor the pair $(\phi_i(x),y)$ is
$r$-intersecting. As $A$ and $B$ are $r$-cross-intersecting, for any pair of adjacent
vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$, we have $x\in A$ if and only if $y\in B$.

The crucial observation is that the graph $G$ is connected. Note that this is
not the case if
$p_k=2$ for some index $k\notin T$, since all $A$-critical vectors $x$ in a
connected component of $G$ would have the same value $x_k$. However, we
assumed that $p_k>2$ for $l\in[n]$. In this case, the $A$-critical vectors $x$
and $x'$ have a common $B$-critical neighbor (and, therefore, their distance in
$G$ is $2$) if and only if the symmetric difference of the $l$ element
sets $\{k\in T\setminus\{i\}\, :\, x_k\ne(x_0)_k\}$ and $\{k\in T\setminus\{i\}\, :\,
x'_k\ne(x_0)_k\}$ have at most $2r-2$ elements. We assumed that $r>1$, so this
means that all $A$-critical vectors are indeed in the same component of the
graph $G$. Therefore, either all $A$-critical vectors belong to $A$ or none of
them does. In the
latter case, we have $A=A'$. In the former case, $A$ is the Hamming ball of
radius $l$ in coordinates $T$ around the vector $x_0'$, where $x_0'$ agrees
with $x_0$ in all coordinates but in $(x_0')_i=j$. In either case, $A$ is a
ball as required. \qed
\medskip

\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem~8.} By Lemma~10, it is enough to restrict our attention to
monotone families $A$ and $B$. We may also assume that all coordinates are
relevant (simply drop the irrelevant coordinates). Thus, we have $n\le
r+3$.

Denote by $U_l$ the Hamming ball of radius $l$
around the all-$1$ vector in the entire set of coordinates $[n]$.
Notice that the monotone families $A$ and $B$ are $r$-cross-intersecting if and
only if for $a\in{\mbox{supp}}(A)$ and $b\in{\mbox{supp}}(B)$ we have $|a\cup b|\le n-r$.
We consider all possible values of $n-r$, separately.
\smallskip

If $n=r$, both families $A$ and $B$ must coincide with the singleton $U_0$.

\smallskip

If $n=r+1$, it is still true that either $A$ or $B$ is $U_0$, and hence both
families are balls. Otherwise, both
${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ and ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$ have to contain at least one non-empty set, but the
union of these sets has size at most $n-r=1$, so we
have ${\mbox{supp}}(A)={\mbox{supp}}(B)=\{\emptyset,\{i\}\}$ for some $i\in[n]$. This
contradicts our assumption that the coordinate $i$ is relevant for $A$.

\smallskip

If $n=r+2$, we are done if $A=B=U_1$. Otherwise, we must have a $2$-element set
either in ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ or in ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$. Let us assume that a $2$-element set
$\{i,j\}$ belongs to ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$. Then each set $b\in{\mbox{supp}}(B)$ must satisfy
$b\subseteq\{i,j\}$. This leaves five possibilities for a non-empty monotone
family $B$, as ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$ must be one of the following set systems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{\emptyset\}$,
\item $\{\emptyset,\{i\}\}$,
\item $\{\emptyset,\{j\}\}$,
\item $\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\}\}$, and
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{i,j\}\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Cases 2, 3, and 5 are not possible, because either $i$ or $j$ would not be
relevant for $B$.

In case 1, $A$ and $B$ are balls, as claimed. Nevertheless, this case is
impossible as the radii of $A$ and $B$ differ by $2$, contradicting Theorem~4.

It remains to deal with case 4. Here ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ consists of the sets of
size at most $1$ and the $2$-element set $\{i,j\}$. Define
$$C=\{x\in S_p\; :\; x_k=1\mbox{ for all }k\in[n]\setminus\{i,j\}\}.$$
Note that $|A|+|B|=|U_1|+|C|$, because each vector in $S_p$ appears in the same
number of sets on both sides. Thus, we have either $|A|+|B|\le2|U_1|$ or
$|A|+|B|\le2|C|$. Since $|A|>|B|$, the above inequalities imply $|A|\cdot|B|<|U_1|^2$ or $|A|\cdot|B|<|C|^2$. This
contradicts the maximality of the pair $(A,B)$, because both $U_1$ and $C$ are
$r$-intersecting. The contradiction completes the proof of the case $n-r=2$.

\smallskip

To complete the proof of Theorem~8, we need to deal with the case $n-r=3$, i.e., when
there are $r+3$ relevant coordinates. Note that, as part 1 of
Theorem~8 does not apply to this case, we have $p_i\ge 3$ for $i\in[n]$. This
slightly simplifies the following case analysis, where we consider all
containment-maximal pairs of families $({\mbox{supp}}(A),{\mbox{supp}}(B))$ with the required
condition on the size of the pairwise unions.

Before considering the individual cases, we make a few simple observations.
First, we have $${\mbox{supp}}(A)=\{T\subseteq[n]\mid\forall U\in{\mbox{supp}}(B):|T\cup
U\le3\},$$
$${\mbox{supp}}(B)=\{U\subseteq[n]\mid\forall T\in{\mbox{supp}}(A):|T\cup U|\le3.$$
These are non-empty sets and they determine the monotone sets $A$ and
$B$.

We say that $i$ {\em dominates} $j$ in a set system $C$, if whenever $j\in T$
but $i\notin T$ for a set $T\in C$, then we have
$(T\setminus\{j\})\cup\{i\}\in C$. We say that
$i$ is {\em equivalent} to $j$ in $C$ if $i$ dominates $j$ in $C$ and $j$ also
dominates $i$. If $i$ dominates $j$ but $j$ does not dominate $i$, then
we say that $i$ {\em strictly dominates} $j$.

Note that if one of the statements {\em ``$i$ dominates $j$," ``$i$ is equivalent to $j$,"}
or {\em ``$i$ strictly dominates $j$"} holds in either ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ or ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$, then
the same statement holds in both families. If $i$ strictly dominates $j$ in
${\mbox{supp}}(A)$, then we have $p_i\ge p_j$. Indeed, otherwise we would have
$|A'|>|A|$ and $|B'|>|B|$ for the monotone families $A'$ and $B'$ whose
supports ${\mbox{supp}}(A')$, resp.\ $supp(B')$, are obtained from ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$,
resp.\ ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$, by switching the roles of $i$ and $j$. Since $A'$ and
$B'$ are $r$-cross-intersecting, this contradicts the maximality of $(A,B)$.

For equivalent coordinates $i$ and $j$ in ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$, we may assume by symmetry
that $p_i\ge p_j$.
\smallskip

\noindent{\bf Case 1.} First assume that ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ contains a $3$-element
set $\{i,j,k\}$. Then all sets in ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$ are contained in $\{i,j,k\}$.
Therefore, ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$ must be one of the following sets, up to a suitable permutation
of the indices $i$, $j$, and $k$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item$\{\emptyset\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{k\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{i,j\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{k\},\{i,j\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{k\},\{i,j\},\{i,k\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{k\},\{i,j\},\{i,k\},\{j,k\}\}$,
\item$\{\emptyset,\{i\},\{j\},\{k\},\{i,j\},\{i,k\},\{j,k\},\{i,j,k\}\}$.
\end{enumerate}

In all of these families, $i$ dominates $j$ and $j$ dominates $k$. So we may
assume $p_i\ge p_j\ge p_k\ge3$.

Subcases 2, 5, 7, and 9 are not possible, because $i$ is not a relevant
coordinate for $A$ in them.

In subcase 1, $A$ and $B$ are balls, but, as before, this case is still
impossible, because the radii of $A$ and $B$ differ by 3.

In subcase 3, we apply Lemma~9 to the set $B$ and coordinate $i$ to obtain
$(p_i-1)^2\le p_j$, a contradiction.

In subcase 4, a similar application of Lemma~9 yields $(p_i-1)^2\le p_j+p_k-1$
with the only solution $p_i=p_j=p_k=3$. We have
${\mbox{supp}}(A)={\mbox{supp}}(U_2)\cup\{\{i,j,k\}\}$ and thus $|A|=|U_2|+8$. We further have
$|B|=7$. We must have $n\ge4$, so that $|U_1|\ge9$ and
$|U_2|\ge33$. Using these estimates, we obtain $|A|\cdot|B|<|U_1|\cdot|U_2|$, a
contradiction.

In subcase 6, we again start with Lemma~9. It yields that $(p_i-1)^2p_j\le
p_j+p_k-1$, a contradiction.

Finally, in subcase 8, we have $(p_i-1)^2(p_j+p_k-1)\le p_jp_k$ from Lemma~9, a
contradiction.
\smallskip

\noindent{\bf Case 2.} Now we assume that ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ contains no $3$-element
sets, but it contains two disjoint $2$-element sets $\{i,j\}$ and $\{k,l\}$. In
this case, ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$ contains the empty set and all singletons plus one of the
following families of $2$-element sets, up to a suitable symmetry on the
indices $i$, $j$, $k$, and $l$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item$\emptyset$,
\item$\{\{i,k\}\}$,
\item$\{\{i,k\},\{i,l\}\}$,
\item$\{\{i,k\},\{j,l\}\}$,
\item$\{\{i,k\},\{i,l\},\{j,l\}\}$,
\item$\{\{i,k\},\{i,l\},\{j,k\},\{j,l\}\}$.
\end{enumerate}

Note that in subcase 1, $A$ and $B$ are balls, and subcase~6 is identical with
subcase~4 with the roles of $A$ and $B$ reversed. We
use Lemma~9 and numeric comparisons to rule out the remaining cases.

Consider the monotone ball $C$ of radius $1$ in the set of coordinates
$[n]\setminus\{i\}$. This is an $r$-intersecting family. In subcases~2 and
3, $i$ dominates all other coordinates, so we may assume that $p_i$ is maximal among
all the $p_m$ ($m\in[n]$). In both subcases considered, we have $2|C|\ge|A|+|B|$. In
subcase~2, this follows from $p_i\ge p_k$, while in subcase~3, we again need to
apply the inequality in Lemma~9. In both subcases, we have $|A|>|B|$. Thus,
$|A|\cdot|B|<|C|^2$, contradicting the maximality of the pair $(A,B)$.

A similar argument works in subcases~4 and 5. Here $i$ does not dominate $l$
(nor does it dominate $j$, in subcase~4), but it dominates all other indices, and we can
still assume by symmetry that $p_i$ is maximal. This implies that $|A|+|B|<2|C|$,
so that $|A|\cdot|B|<|C|^2$, a contradiction.
\smallskip

\noindent{\bf Case 3.} Finally, assume that Cases~1 and 2 do not hold. In this
case, for any pair $T,U\in{\mbox{supp}}(A)$, we have $|T\cup U|\le3$ and, hence,
${\mbox{supp}}(B)\supseteq{\mbox{supp}}(A)$. We can further assume by symmetry that ${\mbox{supp}}(B)$
contains no $3$-element set and no pair of disjoint $2$-element sets. This
implies ${\mbox{supp}}(A)={\mbox{supp}}(B)$ so that $A=B$. In this case, ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ contains the
empty set, the singletons, and a containment-maximal intersecting family of
pairs. There are only two types of such families to consider:
\begin{enumerate}
\item (star) ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ contains the empty set, all singletons, and all pairs
  containing some fixed coordinate $i\in[n]$.
\item (triangle) ${\mbox{supp}}(A)$ contains the empty set, all singletons, and the pairs
  formed by two of the three distinct coordinates $i,j,k\in[n]$.
\end{enumerate}
Here subcase~1 is not possible, as $i$ is not a relevant coordinate for
$A$. In subcase~2, we may once again assume that $p_i$ is maximal. We use the
same $r$-intersecting family $C$ as in Case~2. To see that $|A|=|B|<|C|$ (a
contradiction), we use Lemma~9. \qed
\medskip

To extend Theorem~8 to somewhat larger values
of relevant coordinates (that is, to verify Conjecture~3, for instance, for the case
where there are $r+4$ relevant coordinates), we would have to go through a similar case analysis as
above. We would have to consider much more cases that correspond
to containment-maximal pairs of set systems $(U,V)$ with $|u\cup v|$ bounded
for $u\in U$ and $v\in V$. This seems to be doable, but the number of cases to
consider grows fast.
\medskip

Now we can prove our main theorem, verifying Conjecture~3 in several special cases.

\medskip
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem~7.} The statement about the case $p_1>r+1$ readily
follows from Lemma~2, as in this case the condition
$$\frac{2}{p_{r+1}}+\sum_{i=1}^r\frac{1}{p_i}\le1$$
holds.

To prove the other two statements in the theorem, we assume that $A$ and $B$ form a maximal $r$-cross-intersecting pair. We also assume without loss of generality that all coordinates are relevant for both families (simply drop the
irrelevant coordinates).

By Theorem~6, we have $\prod_{i=1}^rp_i\ge\prod_{i=1}^n(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}$, and
thus
$$\prod_{i=1}^r\frac{p_i}{(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}}\ge\prod_{i=r+1}^n(p_i-1)^{1-2/p_i}.$$
Here the function $x/(x-1)^{1-2/x}$ is decreasing for $x\ge3$, while $(x-1)^{1-2/x}$ is
increasing, and we have $p_i\ge p_1\ge3$. Therefore, we also have
$$\prod_{i=1}^r\frac{p_1}{(p_1-1)^{1-2/p_1}}\ge\prod_{i=r+1}^n(p_1-1)^{1-2/p_1},$$
$$p_1^r\ge(p_1-1)^{n(1-2/p_1)},$$
$$n\le\frac{r\log p_1}{(1-2/p_1)\log(p_1-1)}.$$
Simple calculation shows that the right-hand side of the last inequality is
strictly smaller than $r+4$ if $p_1\le t(r)$ for some function $t(r)=r/2+o(r)$
and, in particular, for $p_1=r+1\ge5$. In this case, we have $n\le r+3$ relevant
coordinates. Thus, Theorem~8 applies, yielding that $A$ and $B$ are balls. This
proves the last statement of Theorem~7.

\smallskip

For the proof of the second statement, note that we have already established
that $A$ and $B$ are balls in up to $r+3$ coordinates. Theorem~4 tells us that
the pair of radii must be $(0,0)$, $(0,1)$, $(1,1)$, or $(1,2)$. Simple calculation
shows that the first possibility (fixing the smallest $r$ coordinates) is
always optimal, and the cases where the two radii are unequal never yield maximal
$r$-cross-intersecting pairs. Finally, the construction with a ball of radius $1$ in $r+2$
coordinates matches the family obtained by fixing the $r$ smallest coordinates if and
only if all relevant coordinates satisfy $p_i=r+1$. This completes the proof of
Theorem~7. \qed

\section{Coordinates with $p_i=2$}\label{cr}
In many of our results, we had to assume $p_i>2$ for all coordinates of the
size vector. Here we elaborate on why the coordinates $p_i=2$ behave
differently.

For the simple characterization of the cases of equality in Theorem~1, the
assumption $k\ne 2$ is necessary. Here we characterize all maximal
cross-intersecting pairs in the case $k=2$.

Let $p=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ be a size vector of positive integers with $k=\min_ip_i=2$ and let $I=\{i\in[n]\; :\; p_i=2\}$. For any set $W$ of functions $I\to[2]$, define the families
$$A_W=\{x\in S_p\; :\;\exists f\in W\; \mbox{such that } x_i=f(i)\; \mbox{for every } i\in I\},$$
$$B_W=\{y\in S_p\; :\;\not\exists f\in W\; \mbox{such that } y_i\ne f(i)\; \mbox{for every } i\in I\}.$$
The families $A_W$ and $B_W$ are cross-intersecting for any $W$. Moreover, if
$|W|=2^{|I|-1}$, we have  $|A_W|\cdot|B_W|=|S_p|^2/4$, so they form a maximal
cross-intersecting pair. Note
that these include more examples than just the pairs of families described in
Theorem~1, provided that $|I|>1$.

We claim that all maximal cross-intersecting pairs are of the
form constructed above. To see this, consider a maximal pair $A,B\subseteq S_p$.
We know from the proof of Theorem~1 that $x\in A$ if and only if $x'\notin B$, where $x'$
is defined by $x'_i=(x_i+1\bmod p_i)$ for all $i\in[n]$.  Let $j\in[n]$ be a
coordinate with $p_j>2$. By the same argument, we also have that
$x\in A$ holds if and only if $x''\notin B$, where $x''_i=x'_i$ for
$i\in[n]\setminus\{j\}$ and $x''_j=(x_j+2\bmod p_j)$. Thus, both $x'$ and
$x''$ belong to $B$ or neither of them does. This holds for every vector $x'$,
implying that $j$ is irrelevant for the family $B$ and thus also for $A$.

As there are no relevant coordinates for $A$ and $B$ outside the set $I$ of
coordinates with $p_i=2$, we can choose a set $W$ of functions from $I$ to
$[2]$ such that $A=A_W$. This makes
$$B=\{y\in S_p\;:\;y\mbox{ intersects all } x\in A\}=B_W.$$
We have $|A|+|B|=|S_p|$ and $|A|\cdot|B|=|S_p|^2/4$ if and only if
$|W|=2^{|I|-1}$.
\smallskip

The size vector $p=(2,\dots,2)$ of length $n$ is well studied. In this case, $S_p$ is the $n$-dimensional hypercube. If $r>1$, then all maximal
$r$-cross-intersecting pairs have an unbounded number of relevant coordinates,
as a function of $n$. Indeed, the density $|A|\cdot|B|/|S_p|^2$ is at most
$1/4$ for cross-intersecting pairs $A,B\subseteq S_p$, and strictly less than
$1/4$ for $r$-cross-intersecting families if $r>1$. Furthermore, if the number of
relevant coordinates is bounded, then this density is bounded away from $1/4$,
while if $A=B$ is the ball of radius $(n-r)/2$ in all the coordinates, then
the same density approaches $1/4$.

One can also find many maximal $2$-cross-intersecting pairs that are not
balls. For example, in the $3$-dimensional hypercube the families
$A=\{0,0,0),(0,1,1)\}$ and $B=\{(0,0,1),(0,1,0)\}$ form a maximal
$2$-cross-intersecting pair.

\smallskip
Finally, we mention that there is a simple connection between the problem
discussed in this paper and a question related to communication
complexity. Consider the following two-person communication game: Alice and
Bob each receive a vector from $S_p$, and they have to decide whether the
vectors are $r$-intersecting. In the {\em communication matrix} of such a game, the
rows are indexed by the possible inputs of Alice, the columns by the possible
inputs of Bob, and an entry of the matrix is $1$ or $0$ corresponding to the
``yes'' or ``no'' output the players have to compute for the corresponding
inputs. In the study of communication games, the submatrices of this
matrix in which all entries are equal play a special role. The largest
area of an all-$1$ submatrix is
the maximal value of $|A|\cdot|B|$ for $r$-cross-intersecting families
$A,B\subseteq S_p$.

\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgment.} We are indebted to G. O. H. Katona, R. Radoi\v ci\'c, and D. Scheder for their valuable remarks, and to an anonymous referee for calling our attention to the manuscript of Borg~\cite{Bo14}.

Cross-intersecting families of vectors


Linear extensions of partial orders and Reverse Mathematics

Abstract: We introduce the notion of \tau-like partial order, where \tau is one of the linear order types \omega, \omega*, \omega+\omega*, and \zeta. For example, being \omega-like means that every element has finitely many predecessors, while being \zeta-like means that every interval is finite. We consider statements of the form "any \tau-like partial order has a \tau-like linear extension" and "any \tau-like partial order is embeddable into \tau" (when \tau\ is \zeta\ this result appears to be new). Working in the framework of reverse mathematics, we show that these statements are equivalent either to B\Sigma^0_2 or to ACA_0 over the usual base system RCA_0.

\section{Introduction}

Szpilrajn's Theorem (\cite{Szp30}) states that any partial order has a
linear extension. This theorem raises many natural questions, where in
general we search for properties of the partial order which are
preserved by some or all its linear extensions. For example it is
well-known that a partial order is a well partial order if and only if
all its linear extensions are well-orders.

A question which has been widely considered is the following: given a
linear order type $\tau$, is it the case that any partial order that
does not embed $\tau$ can be extended to a linear order that also does
not embed $\tau$? If the answer is affirmative, $\tau$ is said to be
extendible, while $\tau$ is weakly extendible if the same holds for any
countable partial order. For instance, the order types of the natural
numbers, of the integers, and of the rationals are extendible. Bonnet
(\cite{Bon69}) and Jullien (\cite{Jul}) characterized all countable
extendible and weakly extendible linear order types respectively.

We are interested in a similar question: given a linear order type
$\tau$ and a property characterizing $\tau$ and its suborders, is it
true that any partial order which satisfies that property has a linear
extension which also satisfies the same property? In our terminology:
does any $\tau$-like partial order have a $\tau$-like linear extension?
Here we address this question for the linear order types $\omega$,
$\omega^*$ (the inverse of $\omega$), $\omega+\omega^*$ and $\zeta$
(the order of integers). So, from now on, $\tau$ will denote one of
these.

\begin{definition}
Let $(P,\leq_P)$ be a countable partial order. We say that $P$ is
\begin{itemize}
  \item \emph{$\omega$-like} if every element of $P$ has finitely
      many predecessors;
  \item \emph{$\omega^*$-like} if every element of $P$ has finitely
      many successors;
  \item \emph{$\omega+\omega^*$-like} if every element of $P$ has
      finitely many predecessors or finitely many successors;
  \item \emph{$\zeta$-like} if for every pair of elements $x,y\in
      P$ there exist only finitely many elements $z$ with $x<_P
      z<_P y$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

The previous definition resembles Definition 2.3 of Hirschfeldt and
Shore (\cite{HirSho07}), where linear orders of type $\omega$,
$\omega^*$ and $\omega+\omega^*$ are introduced. The main difference is
that the order properties defined by Hirschfeldt and Shore are meant to
uniquely determine a linear order type up to isomorphism, whereas our
definitions apply to partial orders in general and do not determine an
order type. Notice also that, for instance, an $\omega$-like partial
order is also $\omega+\omega^*$-like and $\zeta$-like.

We introduce the following terminology:

\begin{definition}
We say that $\tau$ is \emph{linearizable} if every $\tau$-like partial
order  has a linear extension which is also $\tau$-like.
\end{definition}

With this definition in hand, we are ready to formulate the results we
want to study:

\begin{theorem}\label{main}
The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item $\omega$ is linearizable;
 \item $\omega^*$ is linearizable;
 \item $\omega+\omega^*$ is linearizable;
 \item $\zeta$ is linearizable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

A proof of the linearizability of $\omega$ can be found in Fra\"iss\'{e}'s
monograph (\cite[\S 2.15]{Fra00}), where the result is attributed to
Milner and Pouzet. $(2)$ is similar to $(1)$ and the proof of $(3)$
easily follows from $(1)$ and $(2)$. The linearizability of $\zeta$ is
apparently a new result (for a proof see Lemma \ref{lemma 2}
below).\medskip

In this paper we study the statements contained in Theorem \ref{main}
from the standpoint of reverse mathematics (the standard reference is
\cite{Sim09}), whose goal is to characterize the axiomatic assumptions
needed to prove mathematical theorems. We assume the reader is familiar
with systems such as {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ and {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}. The reverse mathematics of weak
extendibility is studied in \cite{DHLS} and \cite{Mon06}. The existence
of maximal linear extensions of well partial orders is studied from the
reverse mathematics viewpoint in \cite{MarSho11}.\medskip

Our main result is that the linearizability of $\tau$ is equivalent
over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ to the  $\SI02$ bounding principle \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ when $\tau \in
\{\omega, \omega^*, \zeta\}$, and to {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\ when $\tau=\omega+\omega^*$.
For more details on \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}, including an apparently new equivalent (simply
asserting that a finite union of finite sets is finite), see
\S\ref{Section FUF} below.

The linearizability of $\omega$ appears to be the first example of a
genuine mathematical theorem (actually appearing in the literature for
its own interest, and not for its metamathematical properties) that
turns out to be equivalent to \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}.\medskip

To round out our reverse mathematics analysis, we also consider a
notion closely related to linearizability:

\begin{definition}
We say that $\tau$ is \emph{embeddable} if every $\tau$-like partial
order $P$ embeds into $\tau$, that is there exists an order preserving
map from $P$ to $\tau$.\footnote{To formalize this definition in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}},
we need to fix a canonical representative of the order type $\tau$,
which we do in Definition 1.5.}
\end{definition}

It is rather obvious that $\tau$ is linearizable if and only if $\tau$
is embeddable. Let us notice that {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ easily proves that embeddable
implies linearizable. Not surprisingly, the converse is not true. In
fact, we show that embeddability is strictly stronger when $\tau \in
\{\omega, \omega^*, \zeta\}$, and indeed equivalent to {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}. The only
exception is given by $\omega+\omega^*$, for which both properties are
equivalent to {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}.\medskip

We use the following definitions in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}.

\begin{definition}[{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}]
Let $\leq$ denote the usual ordering of natural numbers. The linear
order $\omega$ is $(\mathbb{N},{\leq})$, while $\omega^*$ is $(\mathbb{N},{\geq})$.

Let $\{P_i\colon i\in Q\}$  be a family of partial orders indexed by a
partial order $Q$. The \emph{lexicographic sum} of the $P_i$ along $Q$,
denoted by  $\sum_{i\in Q}P_i$, is the partial order on the set
$\{(i,x)\colon i\in Q \land x\in P_i\}$  defined by
\[
(i,x) \leq (j,y) \iff i <_Q j \lor (i=j \land x \leq_{P_i} y).
\]

The \emph{sum} $\sum_{i<n}P_i$ can be regarded as the lexicographic sum
along the $n$-element chain. In particular $P_0+P_1$ is the
lexicographic sum along the $2$-element chain (and we have thus defined
$\omega + \omega^*$ and $\zeta = \omega^*+\omega$).

Similarly, the \emph{disjoint sum} $\bigoplus_{i<n} P_i$ is the
lexicographic sum along the $n$-element antichain.
\end{definition}

\section{$\SI02$ bounding and finite union of finite sets}\label{Section FUF}

Let us recall that \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ (standing for \SI02 bounding, and also known as
\SI02 collection) is the scheme:
\[
\tag{\ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}} (\forall i<n) (\exists m) \varphi(i,n,m) \implies
(\exists k) (\forall i<n) (\exists m<k) \varphi(i,n,m),
\]
where $\varphi$ is any $\SI02$ formula.

It is well-known that {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ does not prove \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}, which is strictly
weaker than \SI02 induction. Neither of {\ensuremath{\mathsf{WKL}_0}}\ and \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ implies the
other and Hirst (\cite{Hirst87}, for a widely available proof see
\cite[Theorem 2.11]{ChoJocSla01}) showed that \ensuremath{\mathsf{RT}^2_2}\ (Ramsey theorem for
pairs and two colors) implies \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}.

A few combinatorial principles are known to be equivalent to \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ over
{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}.

Hirst (\cite{Hirst87}, for a widely available proof see \cite[Theorem
2.10]{ChoJocSla01}) showed that, over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ is equivalent to the
infinite pigeonhole principle, i.e. the statement
\[
\tag{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RT}^1_{<\infty}}} (\forall n) (\forall f:\mathbb{N} \to n) (\exists A \subseteq \mathbb{N} \text{ infinite}) (\exists c<n) (\forall m\in A) (f(m)=c).
\]
(The notation arises from viewing the infinite pigeonhole principle as
Ramsey theorem for singletons and an arbitrary finite number of
colors.)

Chong, Lempp and Yang (\cite{ChoLemYan10}) showed that a combinatorial
principle \ensuremath{\mathsf{PART}}\ about infinite $\omega+\omega^*$ linear orders,
introduced by Hirschfeldt and Shore (\cite[\S4]{HirSho07}), is also
equivalent to \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}. More recently, Hirst (\cite{Hirst12}) also proved
that \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ is equivalent to a statement apparently similar to Hindman's
theorem, but much weaker from the reverse mathematics viewpoint.

We consider the statement that a finite union of finite sets is finite:
\[
\tag{\ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}} (\forall i<n) (X_i \text{ is finite}) \implies
\bigcup_{i<n} X_i \text{ is finite}.
\]
Here ``$X$ is finite'' means $(\exists m)(\forall x \in X) (x<m)$. This
statement can be viewed as a second-order version of $\Pi_0$
regularity, which in the context of first-order arithmetic is known to
be equivalent to $\Sigma_2$ bounding (see e.g.\ \cite[Theorem
2.23.4]{HajPud}).

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 0}
Over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}, \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ is equivalent to \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First notice that \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}\ follows immediately from the instance of \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\
relative to the \PI01, and hence \SI02, formula $(\forall x \in X_i)
(x<m)$.

For the other direction we use Hirst's result recalled above: it
suffices to prove that \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}\ implies \ensuremath{\mathsf{RT}^1_{<\infty}}. Let $f\colon\mathbb{N}\to n$ be
given. Define for each $i<n$ the set $X_i=\{m\colon f(m)=i\}$. Clearly
$\bigcup_{i<n}X_i=\mathbb{N}$ is infinite. By \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}, there exists $i<n$ such
that $X_i$ is infinite. Now $X_i$ is an infinite homogeneous set for
$f$.
\end{proof}

\section{Linearizable types}

Notice that Szpilrajn's Theorem is easily seen to be computably true
(see \cite[Observation 6.1]{Dow98}) and provable in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}. We use this
fact several times without further notice.

We start by proving that \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ suffices to establish the linearizability
of $\omega$, $\omega^*$ and $\zeta$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 1}
{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ proves that \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ implies the linearizability of $\omega$ and
$\omega^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We argue in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ and, by Lemma \ref{lemma 0}, we may assume \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}. Let
us consider first $\omega$. So let $P$ be an $\omega$-like partial
order which, to avoid trivialities, we may assume to be infinite. We
recursively define a sequence $z_n\in P$ by letting $z_n$ be the least
(w.r.t.\ the usual ordering of $\mathbb{N}$) $x\in P$ such that $(\forall
i<n)(x\nleq_P z_i)$.

We show by \SI01 induction that $z_n$ is defined for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Suppose that $z_i$ is defined for all $i<n$. We want to prove $(\exists
x\in P)(\forall i<n)(x\nleq_P z_i)$. Define $X_i=\{x\in P\colon x\leq
_P z_i\}$ for $i<n$. Since $P$ is $\omega$-like, each $X_i$ is finite.
By \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}, $\bigcup_{i<n} X_i$ is also finite. The claim follows from the
fact that $P$ is infinite.

Now define for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the finite set
\[ P_n=\{x\in P\colon x\leq_P z_n\land(\forall i<n)(x\nleq_P z_i)\}.\]
It is not hard to see that the $P_n$'s form a partition of $P$, and
that if $x\leq_P y$ with $x\in P_i$ and $y\in P_j$, then $i\leq j$.
Then let $L$ be a linear extension of the lexicographic sum
$\sum_{n\in\omega} P_n$. $L$ is clearly a linear order and extends $P$
by the remark above. To prove that $L$ is $\omega$-like, note that the
set of $L$-predecessors of an element of $P_n$ is included in
$\bigcup_{i \leq n} P_i$, which is finite, by \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}\ again.

For $\omega^*$, repeat the same construction using $\geq_P$ in place of
$\leq_P$, and let $L$ be a linear extension of
$\sum_{n\in\omega^*}P_n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma 2}
{\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ proves that \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ implies  the linearizability of $\zeta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ assume \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}. Let $P$ be a $\zeta$-like partial order, which we
may again assume to be infinite. It is convenient to use the notation
$[x,y]_P = \{z\in P\colon x\leq_P z\leq_P y \lor y \leq_P z\leq_P x\}$,
so that $[x,y]_P \neq \emptyset$ if and only if $x$ and $y$ are
comparable.

We define by recursion a sequence $z_n\in P$ by letting $z_n$ be the
least (w.r.t.\ the ordering of $\mathbb{N}$) $x\in P$ such that
\[
x\notin \bigcup_{i,j<n}\mathopen{[}z_i,z_j\mathclose{]}_P.
\]

As before, since $P$ is infinite and $\zeta$-like, one can prove using
\SI01 induction and \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}\ that $z_n$ is defined for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. It
is also easy to prove that
\[
    P=\bigcup_{i,j\in\mathbb{N}}[z_i,z_j\mathclose{]}_P.
\]
Define for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the set
\[
P_n=\bigcup_{i<n}[z_i, z_n\mathclose{]}_P\setminus \bigcup_{i,j<n} [z_i,z_j\mathclose{]}_P.
\]
By \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}, the $P_n$'s are finite. Moreover, they clearly form a
partition of $P$. Note also that $z_n\in P_n$ and every element of
$P_n$ is comparable with $z_n$. Furthermore, every interval $[x,y]_P$
is included in some $[z_i,z_j]_P$. Notice that the same holds for any
partial order extending $\leq_P$.

We now extend $\leq_P$ to a partial order $\preceq_P$ such that any
linear extension of $(P,{\preceq_P})$ is $\zeta$-like. We say that $n$
is left if $z_n\leq_P z_i$ for some $i<n$; otherwise, we say that $n$
is right. Notice that, since $z_n \in P_n$, $n$ is right if and only if
$z_i\leq_P z_n$ for some $i<n$ or $z_n$ is incomparable with every
$z_i$ with $i<n$.

The order $\preceq_P$ places $P_n$ below or above every $P_i$ with
$i<n$ depending on whether $n$ is left or right. Formally, for $x,y\in
P$ such that $x\in P_n$ and $y\in P_m$ let
\[
x\preceq_P y \iff
(n=m\land x\leq_P y)\lor(n<m\land m\ \text{is right})\lor(m<n\land n\ \text{is left}).
\]

We claim that $\preceq_P$ extends $\leq_P$. Let $x\leq_P y$ with $x\in
P_n$ and $y\in P_m$. If $n=m$, $x\preceq_P y$ by definition. Suppose
now that $n<m$, so that we need to prove that $m$ is right. As $x\in
P_n$, $z_i\leq_P x$ for some $i\leq n$. Since $y\in P_m$,  $y$ is
comparable with $z_m$. Suppose that  $z_m<_P y$. Then $y\leq_P z_j$ for
some $j<m$, and so $z_i\leq_Px\leq_P y\leq_P z_j$ with $i,j<m$,
contrary to $y\in P_m$. It follows that $y\leq_P z_m$ and thereby
$z_i\leq_P z_m$ with $i<m$. Therefore, $m$ is right, as desired. The
case $n>m$ (where we need to prove that $n$ is left) is similar.

We claim that $(P,\preceq_P)$ is still $\zeta$-like. To see this, it is
enough to show that for all $i,j<n$
\[
\{x\in P\colon z_i\preceq_P x\preceq_P z_j\} \subseteq \bigcup_{k<n} P_k
\]
and apply \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}. Let $x\in P_k$ be such that $z_i\prec_P x\prec_P z_j$.
Suppose, for a contradiction, that $k\geq n$ and hence that $i,j<k$. By
the definition of $\preceq_P$, $z_i\prec_P x$ implies that $k$ is
right. At the same time,  $x\prec_P z_j$ implies that $k$ is left, a
contradiction.

Now let $L$ be any linear extension of $(P,{\preceq_P})$ and hence of
$(P,{\leq_P})$. We claim that $L$ is $\zeta$-like. To prove this, we
show that for all $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$
\[
\{ x\in P\colon z_i\leq_L x\leq_L z_j\}=\{x\in P\colon z_i\preceq_P x\preceq_P z_j\}.
\]
One inclusion is obvious because $\leq_L$ extends $\preceq_P$. For the
converse, observe that the $z_n$'s are $\preceq_P$-comparable with any
other element.
\end{proof}

We can now state and  prove our reverse mathematics results.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 0}
Over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}, the following are pairwise equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02};
 \item $\omega$ is linearizable;
 \item $\omega^*$ is linearizable;
 \item $\zeta$ is linearizable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lemma 1} gives $(1)\rightarrow(2)$ and $(1)\rightarrow(3)$.
The implication $(1)\rightarrow(4)$ is Lemma \ref{lemma 2}.

To show $(2)\rightarrow(1)$, we assume linearizability of $\omega$ and
prove \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}. So let $\{X_i\colon i<n\}$ be a finite family of finite
sets. We define $P= \bigoplus_{i<n} (X_i+\{m_i\})$, where the $m_i$'s
are distinct and every $X_i$ is regarded as an antichain. $P$ is
$\omega$-like, and so by $(2)$ there exists an $\omega$-like linear
extension $L$ of $P$. Let $m_j$ be the $L$-maximum of $\{m_i \colon
i<n\}$. Then $\bigcup_{i<n} X_i$ is included in the set of
$L$-predecessors of $m_j$, and is therefore finite because $L$ is
$\omega$-like.

The implication $(3)\to(1)$ is analogous. For $(4)\to(1)$, prove \ensuremath{\mathsf{FUF}}\
by using the partial order $\bigoplus_{i<n} (\{\ell_i\} + X_i +
\{m_i\})$.
\end{proof}

We now show that the linearizability of $\omega+\omega^*$ requires
{\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem 1}
Over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}};
 \item $\omega+\omega^*$ is linearizable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We begin by proving $(1)\to(2)$. Let $P$ be an $\omega+\omega^*$-like
partial order. In {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\ we can define the set $P_0$ of the elements
having finitely many predecessors. So $P_1=P\setminus P_0$ consists of
elements having finitely many successors. Clearly, $P_0$ is
$\omega$-like and $P_1$ is $\omega^*$-like. Since {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\ is strong
enough to prove \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}, by Lemma \ref{lemma 1}, $P_0$ has an $\omega$-like
linear extension $L_0$ and $P_1$ has an $\omega^*$-like linear
extension $L_1$. Since $P_0$ is downward closed and $P_1$ is upward
closed, it is not difficult to check that the linear order $L=L_0+L_1$
is $\omega+\omega^*$-like and extends $P$.\smallskip

For the converse, let $f\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ be a one-to-one function. We set
out to define an $\omega+\omega^*$-like partial order $P$ such that any
$\omega+\omega^*$-like linear extension of $P$ encodes the range of
$f$. To this end, we use an $\omega+\omega^*$-like linear order
$A=\{a_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ given by the false and true stages of $f$.
Recall that $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is said to be true (for $f$) if $(\forall
m>n)(f(m)>f(n))$ and false otherwise, and note that the range of $f$ is
\DE01 definable from any infinite set of true stages.

The idea for $A$ comes from the well-known construction of a computable
linear order such that any infinite descending sequence computes
$\emptyset'$. This construction can be carried out in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ (see
\cite[Lemma 4.2]{MarSho11}). Here, we define $A$ by letting $a_n\leq
a_m$ if and only if either
\begin{gather*}
f(k)<f(n) \text{ for some }n<k\leq m, \text{ or}\\
 m\leq n \text{ and } f(k)>f(m) \text{ for all }m<k\leq n.
\end{gather*}

It is not hard to see that $A$ is a linear order. Moreover, if $n$ is
false, then $a_n$ has finitely many predecessors and infinitely many
successors. Similarly, if $n$ is true, then $a_n$ has finitely many
successors and infinitely many predecessors. In particular, $A$ is an
$\omega+\omega^*$-like linear order.

Now let $P=A\oplus B$ where $B=\{b_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is a linear order
of order type $\omega^*$, defined by letting $b_n \leq b_m$ if and only
if $n \geq m$. It is clear that $P$ is an $\omega+\omega^*$-like
partial order. By hypothesis, there exists an $\omega+\omega^*$-like
linear extension $L$ of $P$. We claim that $n$ is a false stage if and
only if it satisfies the \PI01 formula $(\forall m)(a_n<_L b_m)$.

In fact, if $n$ is false and $b_m\leq_L a_n$, then $b_m$ has infinitely
many successors in $L$, since $a_n$ has infinitely many successors in
$P$ and a fortiori in $L$. On the other hand, $b_m$ has infinitely many
predecessors in $P$, and hence also in $L$, contradiction. Likewise, if
$n$ is true and $a_n<_L b_m$ for all $m$, then $a_n$ has infinitely
many successors as well as infinitely many predecessors in $L$, which
is a contradiction again.

Therefore, the set of false stages is \DE01, and so is the set of true
stages, which thus exists in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Embeddable types}

We turn our attention to embeddability. As noted before, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}\ suffices
to prove that ``$\tau$ is embeddable'' implies ``$\tau$ is
linearizable''. The converse is true in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}.  Actually, embeddability
is  equivalent to {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}. We thus prove the following.

\begin{theorem}
The following are pairwise equivalent over {\ensuremath{\mathsf{RCA}_0}}:
\begin{enumerate}
 \item {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}};
 \item $\omega$ is embeddable;
 \item $\omega^*$ is embeddable;
 \item $\zeta$ is embeddable;
 \item $\omega+\omega^*$ is embeddable;
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first show that $(1)$ implies the other statements. Since \ensuremath{\mathsf{B}\SI02}\ is
provable in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}, it follows from Theorem \ref{theorem 0} that {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\
proves the linearizability of $\omega$, $\omega^*$ and $\zeta$.  By
Theorem \ref{theorem 1}, {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\ proves the linearizability of $\omega
+\omega^*$. We now claim that in {\ensuremath{\mathsf{ACA}_0}}\ ``$\tau$ is linearizable''
implies ``$\tau$ is embeddable'' for each $\tau$ we are considering.
The key fact is that the property of having finitely many predecessors
(successors) in a partial order, as well as having exactly $n\in\mathbb{N}$
predecessors (successors), is arithmetical. Analogously, for a set, and
hence for an interval, being finite or having size exactly $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is
arithmetical too. (All these properties are in fact $\SI02$.)

We consider explicitly the case of $\omega+\omega^*$ (the other cases
are similar). So let $L$ be a $\omega+\omega^*$-like linear extension
of a given $\omega+\omega^*$-like partial order. We want to show that
$L$ is embeddable into $\omega+\omega^*$. Define $f\colon L\to
\omega+\omega^*$ by
\[ f(x)=\begin{cases}
          (0,|\{y\in L\colon y<_L x\}|) & \text{if}\ x\ \text{has finitely many predecessors,}\\
          (1,|\{y\in L\colon x<_L y\}|) &  \text{otherwise}.
        \end{cases}\]
It is easy to see that $f$ preserves the order.\smallskip

For the reversals, notice that $(5)\to(1)$ immediately follows from
Theorem \ref{theorem 1}.

As the others are quite similar, we only prove $(2)\to(1)$ with a
construction similar to that used in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in
\cite{FriHir90}. Let $f\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$ be a given one-to-one function.
We want to prove that the range of $f$ exists. We fix an antichain
$A=\{a_m\colon m\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and elements $b^n_j$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j\leq
n$. The partial order $P$ is obtained by putting for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ the
$n+1$ elements $b^n_j$ below $a_{f(n)}$. Formally, $b^n_j \leq_P a_m$
when $f(n) \leq m$, and there are no other comparabilities.

$P$ is clearly an $\omega$-like partial order. Apply the hypothesis and
obtain an embedding $h\colon P\to\omega$. Now, we claim that $m$
belongs to the range of $f$ if and only if $(\exists
n<h(a_m))(f(n)=m)$. One implication is trivial. For the other, suppose
that $f(n)=m$. By construction, $a_m$ has at least $n+1$ predecessors
in $P$, and thus it must be $h(a_m)>n$.
\end{proof}