Berge cycles in non-uniform hypergraphs

Abstract: We consider two extremal problems for set systems without long Berge cycles. First we give Dirac-type minimum degree conditions that force long Berge cycles. Next we give an upper bound for the number of hyperedges in a hypergraph with bounded circumference. Both results are best possible in infinitely many cases.

\section{Introduction}

\subsection{Classical results on longest cycles in graphs}

The {\em circumference} $c(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the length of its longest cycle.
In particular, if a graph has a cycle $C$ which covers all of its vertices, $V(C)=V(G)$, we say it is {\em hamiltonian}.
A classical result of Dirac states that high minimum degree in a graph forces hamiltonicity.

\begin{thm}[Dirac~\cite{D}]\label{th:D} Let $n \geq 3$, and let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph with minimum degree $\delta(G)$.
If $\delta(G) \geq n/2$, then $G$ contains a hamiltonian cycle.
If $G$ is 2-connected, then  $c(G)\geq \min\{n, 2\delta(G)\}$.
\end{thm}

Inspired by this theorem, it is common in extremal combinatorics to refer to results in which a minimum degree condition forces some structure as a {\em Dirac-type condition}.
The second part of Theorem~\ref{th:D} cannot be extended to non 2-connected graphs:
 let ${\mathcal F}_{n,k}$ be the family of graphs in which each block (inclusion  maximal 2-connected subgraph) of the graph is a copy of $K_{k-1}$.
Every $F \in {\mathcal F}_{n,k}$ has minimum degree $k-2$, but its longest cycle has length $k-1$.

\begin{thm}[Erd\H{o}s, Gallai~\cite{EG}]\label{th:EG} Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph with no cycle of length $k$ or longer. Then $e(G) \leq \frac{n-1}{k-2}{k-1 \choose 2}$.
\end{thm}

So the graphs in ${\mathcal F}_{n,k}$ have the maximum number of edges among the  $n$-vertex graphs with circumference $k-1$.
They also maximize the number of cliques of any size:

\begin{thm}[Luo~\cite{luo}]\label{cliques} Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph with no cycle of length $k$ or longer. Then the number of copies of $K_r$ in $G$ is at most $\frac{n-1}{k-2}{k-1 \choose r}$.
\end{thm}

\subsection{Known results on cycles in hypergraphs}

A hypergraph ${\mathcal H}$ is a set system.  We often refer to the ground set as the set of  vertices $V({\mathcal H})$ of ${\mathcal H}$ and to the sets as the hyperedges $E({\mathcal H})$ of ${\mathcal H}$. When there is no ambiguity, we may also refer to the hyperedges as edges. In this paper, we prove versions of Theorems~\ref{th:D} and~\ref{th:EG} for hypergraphs with no restriction on edge sizes. Namely, we seek long {\em Berge cycles}.

A {\bf Berge cycle} of length $\ell$ in a hypergraph is a set of $\ell$ distinct vertices $\{v_1, \ldots, v_\ell\}$ and $\ell$ distinct edges $\{e_1, \ldots, e_\ell\}$ such that $\{ v_{i}, v_{i+1} \}\subseteq   e_i$ with indices taken modulo $\ell$. The vertices $\{v_1, \ldots, v_\ell\}$ are called {\bf representative vertices} of the Berge cycle.

  A {\bf Berge path} of length $\ell$ in a hypergraph  is a set of $\ell+1$ distinct vertices $\{v_1, \ldots, v_{\ell+1}\}$ and $\ell$ distinct hyperedges $\{e_1, \ldots, e_{\ell}\}$ such that $\{ v_{i}, v_{i+1} \}\subseteq   e_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq \ell$. The vertices $\{v_1, \ldots, v_{\ell+1}\}$ are called {\bf representative vertices} of the Berge path.

For a hypergraph ${\mathcal H}$, the {\bf 2-shadow} of ${\mathcal H}$, denoted $\partial_2 {\mathcal H}$, is the graph on the same vertex set such that $xy \in E(\partial_2{\mathcal H})$ if and only if $\{x,y\}$ is contained in an edge of ${\mathcal H}$.

Note that if we require no conditions on multiplicities of hyperedges, then we can arbitrarily add hyperedges of size $1$ without creating new Berge cyles or Berge paths. From now on, we only consider {\em simple} hypergraphs, i.e., those without multiple edges (except if it is stated otherwise).

Bermond, Germa, Heydemann, and Sotteau~\cite{bermond} were among the first to prove Dirac-type results for uniform hypergraphs without long Berge cycles: Let $k > r$ and ${\mathcal H}$ be an $r$-uniform hypergraph with minimum degree $\delta({\mathcal H})  \geq {k-2 \choose r-1} + (r-1)$, then ${\mathcal H}$ contains a Berge cycle of length at least $k$.
For large $n$, generalizations and results for linear hypergraphs are proved by   Jiang and  Ma~\cite{JM}.
 Ma,  Hou, and  Gao~\cite{MHG_r3} studied $3$-uniform hypergraphs.
Coulson and Perarnau~\cite{rainbow} proved that if ${\mathcal H}$ is an $r$-uniform hypergraph on $n$ vertices, $r = o(\sqrt{n})$, and ${\mathcal H}$ has minimum degree $\delta({\mathcal H}) > {\lfloor (n-1)/2 \rfloor \choose r-1}$, then ${\mathcal H}$ contains a Berge hamiltonian cycle.

Our new results differ from these in several aspects. We consider non-uniform hypergraphs, prove exact formulas, prove results for every $n$ (or every $n> 14$), and use only classical tools mentioned above and in  Section~\ref{ss0}.

\section{New results}
Our first result is a Dirac-type condition that forces hamiltonian Berge cycles.

\begin{thm}\label{diracH}
Let $n \geq 15$
and let ${\mathcal H}$ be an $n$-vertex hypergraph such that $\delta({\mathcal H}) \geq 2^{(n-1)/2} + 1$ if $n$ is odd, or $\delta({\mathcal H}) \geq 2^{n/2 -1} + 2$ if $n$ is even. Then ${\mathcal H}$ contains a Berge hamiltonian cycle.
\end{thm}

The following four constructions show that Theorem~\ref{diracH} is the best possible.
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n$ be odd. Let ${\mathcal H}$ be the $n$-vertex hypergraph on the ground set $[n]$ with edges $\{A: A \subseteq [(n+1)/2]\} \cup \{B: B \subseteq \{(n+1)/2, \ldots n\}\}$. Then $\delta({\mathcal H}) = 2^{(n-1)/2}$ and ${\mathcal H}$ has no hamiltonian Berge cycle (because it has a cut vertex).
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n$ be even. Let ${\mathcal H}$ be the $n$-vertex hypergraph on the ground set $[n]$ with edges $\{A: A \subseteq [n/2]\} \cup \{B: B \subseteq \{(n/2 +1, \ldots n\}\}$ and the set $[n]$. Then $\delta({\mathcal H}) = 2^{n/2 -1}+1$ and ${\mathcal H}$ has no hamiltonian Berge cycle (because it has a cut edge, $[n]$).
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n$ be odd.  Let ${\mathcal H}$ be the $n$-vertex hypergraph on the ground set $[n]$ obtained by taking all hyperedges with at most one vertex in $[(n+1)/2]$. Then $\delta({\mathcal H}) = 2^{(n-1)/2}$, and ${\mathcal H}$ cannot contain a Berge cycle with two consecutive representative vertices in $[(n+1)/2]$.
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n$ be even. Let ${\mathcal H}$ be the $n$-vertex hypergraph on the ground set $[n]$ obtained by taking all hyperedges with at most one vertex in $[n/2 + 1]$ and the edge $[n]$. Then $\delta({\mathcal H}) = 2^{n/2 - 1} + 1$, and ${\mathcal H}$ cannot contain a Berge cycle with two instances of two consecutive representative vertices in $[n/2 + 1]$ (because only one edge of ${\mathcal H}$ contains multiple vertices in $[n/2+1]$).

Next, we consider hypergraphs without long Berge paths or cycles.

\begin{thm}\label{th:mindeg_path}
Let $k \geq 2$ and let ${\mathcal H}$ be a hypergraph such that $\delta({\mathcal H}) \geq 2^{k-2}+1$.
Then ${\mathcal H}$ contains a Berge path with $k$ base vertices.
\end{thm}

A vertex disjoint union of complete hypergraphs of $k-1$ vertices shows that this bound is  best possible for $n:=|V({\mathcal H})|$  divisible by $(k-1)$.
It would be interesting to find  $\max \delta({\mathcal H})$ for other values of $n$, and also for the cases when ${\mathcal H}$ is
  connected or 2-connected.

\begin{thm}\label{th:mindeg_cycle}
Let $k \geq 3$ and let ${\mathcal H}$ be a hypergraph such that $\delta({\mathcal H}) \geq 2^{k-2}+2$.
Then ${\mathcal H}$ contains a Berge cycle of length at least $k$.
\end{thm}

The following constructions show that the bound in Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_cycle} is  best possible when $n$ is divisible by $(k-1)$ and also when $n\equiv 1 \mod (k-1)$ for $n>(k-1)(2^{k-2}+1)$.
In the first case, take a vertex disjoint union of complete hypergraphs with $k-1$ vertices and add one more set, namely $[n]$.
In the other case, take $m:=(n-1)/(k-1) \geq 2^{k-2}+1$ disjoint $(k-1)$-sets $A_1, \dots, A_m$ and an element $x$ such that $[n]=(\cup _{1\leq i\leq m}A_i)\cup  \{ x\} $. Then define ${\mathcal H}$ as the union of complete hypergraphs on
 the sets $A_i$'s together with the hyperedges of the form $A_i \cup \{ x\} $.
If we do not insist on connectedness, then $(2^{k-2}+1)$-regular examples can be constructed for \emph{all} $n\geq k^2 2^{k-2}$.

Finally, we prove a hypergraph version of Theorem~\ref{th:EG}.

\begin{thm}\label{th:EGh}Let $n \geq k \geq 3$ and let ${\mathcal H}$ be an $n$-vertex hypergraph with no Berge cycle of length $k$ or longer. Then \[e({\mathcal H}) \leq
 2+ \frac{n-1}{k-2}\left(2^{k-1}-2\right)
.\]
\end{thm}
The bound in Theorem~\ref{th:EGh} is best possible when $n \equiv 1 \mod (k-2)$. Take $m:= (n-1)/(k-2)$ and disjoint sets $A_1 , \ldots, A_m$ of size $k-2$. Let $x$ be a new element, and set $[n] = (\cup _{1\leq i\leq m}A_i)\cup  \{ x\}$. Define ${\mathcal H}$ to be the union of all sets $A$ such that there exists an $i$ with $A \setminus \{x\} \subseteq A_i$. Note that the 2-shadow $\partial_2({\mathcal H})$ is in the family ${\mathcal F}_{n,k}$ defined before Theorem~\ref{th:EG}.

There are many exact results concerning the maximum size of uniform hypergraphs avoiding Berge paths and cycles, see the recent results of Ergemlidze et al.~\cite{EGyMSTZ}
or one by the present authors~\cite{FKL}.

\section{Dirac type conditions for hamiltonian hypergraphs}
In this section, we present a proof for Theorem~\ref{diracH}. The proof method relies on reducing the hypergraph to a dense nonhamiltonian graph.
In the next three subsections we collect some results  about such graphs.
Subsections~\ref{ss33} and~\ref{ss34} contain the proof for hypergraphs.

\subsection{Classical tools}\label{ss0}

Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex graph. The {\em hamilton-closure} of $G$ is the unique  graph $C(G)$ of order $n$  that can be obtained from $G$ by recursively joining nonadjacent vertices with degree-sum at least $n$.

\begin{thm}[Bondy, Chv\'atal~\cite{BC}]\label{BCthm}
If $C(G)$ is hamiltonian, then so is $G$.
\end{thm}

A graph $G$ is called {\em hamiltonian-connected} if for any pair of vertices $x,y \in V(G)$ there is a hamiltonian $(x,y)$-path.
The following corollary can be  obtained from Theorem~\ref{BCthm} or from the classical result of P\'osa~\cite{Posa}:
If for every pair of nonadjacent vertices $x,y \in V(G)$ we have $d(x) + d(y) \geq |V(G)| + 1$, then $G$ is hamiltonian-connected.

\begin{cor}\label{cor1}
If $e(G)\geq \binom{n}{2}-2$ and $n\geq 5$ then $G$ is hamiltonian-connected.  \hfill\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else\hfill$\Box$\fi
\end{cor}

We will need the following result about the structure of matchings in bipartite graphs. It is a well known fact in the theory of transversal matroids (but one can also give a short, direct proof
 finding an $M_3\subseteq M_1\cup M_2$).

\begin{thm}\label{matroid}
Let $G[X,Y]$ be a bipartite graph. Suppose that there is a matching $M_1$ in $G$ joining the vertices of $X_1\subseteq X$ and $Y_1\subseteq Y$.
Suppose also that we have another matching $M_2$ with end vertices $X_2\subseteq X$ and $Y_2 \subseteq Y$ such that $Y_2\subseteq Y_1$.
Then there exists a third matching $M_3$ from $X_3 \subseteq X$ to $Y_3 \subseteq Y$ such that
\begin{equation*}
  Y_3=Y_1 \quad \text{and} \quad X_3\supseteq X_2.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}[Erd\H{o}s~\cite{Erdos}]\label{Erdos} Let $n, d$ be integers with $1 \leq d \leq \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right \rfloor$, and set $h(n,d):={n-d \choose 2} + d^2$.
If $G$ is a nonhamiltonian graph on $n$ vertices with minimum degree $\delta(G) \geq d$, then
     \[e(G) \leq \max\left\{ h(n,d),h(n, \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right \rfloor)\right\}=:e(n,d).\]
\end{thm}

\subsection{A lemma for nonhamiltonian graphs}\label{ss11}

The lemma below follows from a result of Voss~\cite{Voss} (and from the even more detailed descriptions by Jung~\cite{Jung} and Jung, Nara~\cite{JungNara}). We only state and use a weaker version and for completeness include a short proof. Define five classes of nonhamiltonian graphs.

${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n=2k+2$, $V=V_1\cup V_2$, $|V_1|=|V_2|=k+1$, ($V_1\cap V_2=\emptyset$). We say that $G\in {\mathcal G}_1$
 if its edge set is the union of two complete graphs with vertex sets $V_1$ and $V_2$ and it contains at most one further edge $e_0$ (joining $V_1$ and $V_2$);
  \newline
 ${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n=2k+1$, $V=V_1\cup V_2$, $|V_1|=|V_2|=k+1$, $V_1\cap V_2=\{ x_0\}$. We say that $G\in {\mathcal G}_2$
 if its edge set is the union of two complete graphs with vertex sets $V_1$ and $V_2$;
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n=2k+2$, $V=V_1\cup V_2$, $|V_1|=k+1$, $|V_2|=k+2$, $V_1\cap V_2=\{ x_0\}$. We say that $G\in {\mathcal G}_3$
 if its edge set is the union of a complete graph with vertex set $V_1$
  and a $2$-connected graph $G_2$ with vertex set $V_2$ such that $\deg_G(v)\geq k$ for every vertex $v\in V$;
  \newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n=2k+1$, $V=V_1\cup V_2$, $|V_1|=k$, $|V_2|=k+1$, ($V_1\cap V_2=\emptyset$).  We say that $G\in {\mathcal G}_4$
 if $V_2$ is an independent set, and its edge set contains all edges joining $V_1$ and $V_2$;
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip Let $n=2k+2$, $V=V_1\cup V_2$, $|V_1|=k$, $|V_2|=k+2$, ($V_1\cap V_2=\emptyset$).  We say that $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$ if
 $V_2$ contains at most one edge $e_0$ and $\deg_G(v)\geq k$ for every vertex $v\in V$ (so its edge set contains all but at most two edges joining $V_1$ and $V_2$).

\begin{lem}\label{5G}Let $k\geq 3$ be an integer, $n \in \{ 2k+1, 2k+2\} $.
Suppose that $G$ is an $n$-vertex nonhamiltonian graph with $\delta(G) \geq k = \lfloor(n-1)/2\rfloor$, $V:= V(G)$.
Then $G\in {\mathcal G}_1\cup \dots \cup {\mathcal G}_5$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $G$ is not 2-connected.
Then there exist two blocks $B_1, B_2$ of $G$ (i.e., $B_i$ is a maximal 2-connected subgraph or a $K_2$) which are {\em endblocks}, i.e., for $i=1,2$ there is a vertex $v_i\in B_i$ such that $V(B_i)\setminus \{ v_i\}$ does not meet any other block.
Then $\{v\} \cup N(v) \subset V(B_i)$ for all $v\in V(B_i)\setminus \{ v_i\}$, so
an endblock has at least $k+1$ vertices and if $|V(B_i)|=k+1$ then it is a clique.
If $B_1$ and $B_2$ are disjoint then we get $n=2k+2$, and $G\in {\mathcal G}_1$.
If $B_1$ and $B_2$ meet, then $G$ has no other blocks, and  $G\in {\mathcal G}_2\cup {\mathcal G}_3$.

Suppose now that $G$ is 2-connected. By the second part of Dirac's theorem (Theorem~\ref{th:D}), the length of a longest cycle $C$ of $G$ is at least $2k$. If $|V(C)| = n-1$,  assume $C=v_1 \ldots v_{n-1} v_1$ and $v_n \notin V(C)$.
Then $v_n$ has at least $k$ neighbors in $C$, with no two of them appearing consecutively (otherwise we could extend $C$ to a hamiltonian cycle). Without loss of generality, let $N(v_n) = \{v_1, v_3, \ldots, v_{2k-1}\}$.
If for some $i<j$ such that $v_i, v_j \in N(v_n)$, $v_{i+1}v_{j+1} \in E(G)$, then we obtain the hamiltonian cycle $v_1 v_2 \ldots v_i v_n v_j v_{j-1} \ldots v_{i+1}v_{j+1} v_{j+2} \ldots v_{n-1}v_1$. Therefore the vertices in $C$ of even parity, together with $v_n$, form an independent set. In case of $n=2k+1$ we got $G\in {\mathcal G}_4$.
If $n=2k+2$ then in the same way we get that $\{v_{2k+1}\}\cup \{ v_2, v_4, \dots, v_{2k-2} \}$ together with $v_n$ is also independent, so the set $\{ v_2, ..., v_{2k-2}\}
 \cup \{ v_{2k}, v_{2k+1}, v_n \}$ contains only the edge $v_{2k}v_{2k+1}$, $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$.

Finally, consider the case  that $|V(C)| = n-2$, (i.e., $n=2k+2$) and let $x, y \notin V(C)$.
We claim that $xy\notin E(G)$. Indeed, suppose to  the contrary, that  $xy \in E(G)$. Without loss of generality,
 $A:=\{v_1, v_3, \ldots, v_{2k-3}\} \subseteq N(x)$ or $(A\setminus  \{ v_{2k-3}\}) \cup \{ v_{2k-2}\})\subseteq N(x)$. Note that for any $v_i \in N(x)$, $\{v_{i-2}, v_{i-1}, v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}\} \cap N(y) = \emptyset$ (indices are taken modulo $2k$), because we can remove a segment of $C$ with at most 3 vertices and replace it with a segment with at least 4 containing the edge $xy$.
 This leads to a contradiction because there is not enough room
    on the $2k$-cycle $C$ to distribute the at least $k-1$ vertices of $N(y)-x$.

If $xy \notin E(G)$ then without loss of generality  $N(x) = \{v_1, v_3,\ldots v_{2k-1}\}$.
Then the set $\{x\} \cup \{v_2, \ldots, v_{2k}\}$ is an independent set.
If $y v_i \in E(G)$ for some $i \in \{2, 4, \ldots, {2k}\}$, then because $y$ has $k$ neighbors in $C$ and no two of them appear consecutively, $N(y) = \{v_2, v_4, \ldots, v_{2k}\}$, and we obtain a hamiltonian cycle by replacing the segment $v_1v_2v_3v_4$ of $C$ with the path $v_1 x v_3 v_2 y v_4$.
Therefore $V_2:=\{v_2, v_4, \ldots, v_{2k}\} \cup \{x, y\}$ is an independent set of size $k+2$, and so  $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{A maximality property of the  graphs in   ${\mathcal G}_1\cup\ldots\cup{\mathcal G}_5$}

Let $G\in {\mathcal G}_1\cup \dots \cup {\mathcal G}_5$ be a graph.
Delete a set of edges ${\mathcal A}$ from $E(G)$ where $|{\mathcal A}|\leq 1$ for $G\in {\mathcal G}_2\cup {\mathcal G}_3\cup {\mathcal G}_4$
and  $|{\mathcal A}|\leq 2$ for $G\in {\mathcal G}_1\cup {\mathcal G}_5$.
Then add a set of new edges ${\mathcal B}$ as defined below:
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip
For $G\in {\mathcal G}_1$, $|{\mathcal B}|=2$ and it consists of any two disjoint pairs joining $V_1$ and $V_2$;
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip
for $G\in {\mathcal G}_2\cup{\mathcal G}_3$, $|{\mathcal B}|=1$ and it consists of any pair $x_1x_2$ joining $V_1\setminus \{ x_0\}$ and $V_2\setminus \{ x_0\}$ (here $x_i\in V_i$);
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip
for $G\in {\mathcal G}_4$, $|{\mathcal B}|=1$ and it consists of any pair contained in $V_2$;
\newline
${}$\enskip --- \enskip
and for $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$, $|{\mathcal B}|=2$ and it consists of any two distinct pairs contained in $V_2$.

\begin{lem}\label{5Gmodified} If $k\geq 6$,
then the graph $\left(E(G)\setminus {\mathcal A}\right) \cup {\mathcal B}$ defined by the above process is hamiltonian, except if $G\in {\mathcal G}_3$,
$x_0$ has exactly two neighbors $x_2$ and $y_2$ in $V_2$, ${\mathcal A}= \{ x_0y_2\}$, ${\mathcal B}= \{ x_1x_2\}$, and $G[V_2\setminus \{ x_0\}]$ is either a $K_{k+1}$ or misses only the edge $x_2y_2$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $G\in {\mathcal G}_1$ and we add two disjoint edges $x_1x_2$ and $y_1y_2$ joining $V_1$ and $V_2$ ($x_1, y_1\in V_1$) then to form a hamiltonian cycle
we need an $x_1x_2$ path $P_1$, and a $y_1y_2$ path $P_2$ of length $k$, $V(P_i)=V_i$ and $E(P_i)\subset E(G)\setminus {\mathcal A}$. Such paths exist because the graph  $G[V_i]\setminus {\mathcal A}$ has at least $\binom{k+1}{2}-2$ edges, so it satisfies the condition of Corollary~\ref{cor1}.

If $G\in {\mathcal G}_2\cup {\mathcal G}_3$ and we add an edge $x_1x_2$ joining $V_1\setminus\{x_0\}$ and $V_2\setminus\{x_0\}$  then
we need paths $P_1$, $P_2$ of length $|V_i|-1$ joining $x_i$ to $x_0$, $V(P_i)=V_i$ and $E(P_i)\subset E(G)\setminus {\mathcal A}$.
If $G[V_i]\setminus {\mathcal A}$ satisfies the condition of Corollary~\ref{cor1} then we can find $P_i$.
The only missing case is when $|V_2|=k+2$ (so $G\in {\mathcal G}_3$).
Let $G_2$ be the graph on $|V_2|+1$ vertices obtained from $G[V_2]\setminus {\mathcal A}$ by adding a new vertex $x_2'$ and two edges $x_0x_2'$ and $x_2x_2'$.
If $G_2$ has a hamiltonian cycle $C$ then it should contain  $x_0x_2'$ and $x_2x_2'$ so the rest of the edges of $C$ can serve as $P_2$ we are looking for. Consider the hamilton-closure $C(G_2)$ and
apply Theorem~\ref{BCthm} to $G_2$. Since the degrees of $V_2\setminus \{ x_0\}$ in $G_2$ are at least $k-1$ and $2(k-1)\geq k+3= |V(G_2)|$, $C(G_2)$ is a complete graph on $V_2\setminus \{ x_0\}$.
So $C(G_2)$ is hamiltonian unless the only neighbors of $x_0$ in $G_2$ are $x_2$ and $x_2'$. Hence $N_G(x_0)\cap V_2= \{ x_2, y_2\}$ and ${\mathcal A}=\{ x_0y_2\}$.

The last case is when $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$, $|{\mathcal A}|=2$, ${\mathcal B}= \{ e_1,e_2\}$ (two distinct edges inside $V_2$). (The proofs of the other cases, especially when  $G\in {\mathcal G}_4$ are easier).
We create a graph $H_0$ from $G$ as follows:
Delete the edge $e_0$ (if it exists), delete the edges of ${\mathcal A}$ joining $V_1$ and $V_2$,
add two new vertices $z_1, z_2$  to $V_1$ and join $z_i$ to the endpoints of $e_i$.
We obtain the graph $H$ by adding all possible $\binom{k+2}{2}$ pairs from $V_1\cup \{ z_1,z_2\}$ to $H_0$.

If $H$ is hamiltonian then its hamiltonian cycle must use only edges of $H_0$ (because $V_2$ is an independent set of size $k+2$ in $H$).
If the
 graph $H_0$ is hamiltonian then its hamiltonian cycle must use the two edges of the degree $2$ vertex $z_i$, so $\left(G\setminus (\{ e_0\}\cup {\mathcal A})\right) \cup {\mathcal B}$ is hamiltonian as well.
So it is sufficient to show that $H$ has a hamiltonian cycle.

Let $A$ be the graph on $V(H)$ consisting of the edges of ${\mathcal A}$ joining $V_1$ and $V_2$ together with the (at most) two missing pairs $E(K(V_1, V_2))\setminus E(G)$.

We will again apply  Theorem~\ref{BCthm} to $H$, so consider the hamilton-closure $C(H)$.
The degree $\deg_H(x)$ of an $x\in V_1$ is $(2k+3)-\deg_A(x)$.
The degree $\deg_H(y)$ of a $y\in V_2$ is at least $|V_1|-\deg_A(y)= k-\deg_A(y)$.
Since $\deg_A(x)+\deg_A(y)\leq |E(A)|+1\leq 5$ we get for $k\geq 6$ that
\[  \deg_H(x)+ \deg_H(y)\geq (3k+3)-\left(\deg_A(x)+\deg_A(y)\right)\geq 3k-2 \geq 2k+4= |V(H)|.
\]
So $C(H)$ contains the complete bipartite graph $K(V_1,V_2)=K_{k,k+2}$.
Then it is really a simple task to find a hamiltonian cycle in $C(H)$
 and therefore $\left(E(G)\setminus {\mathcal A}\right) \cup {\mathcal B}$ is hamiltonian.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{diracH}, reducing the hypergraph to a dense graph}\label{ss33}

 Fix ${\mathcal H}$ to be an $n$ vertex hypergraph satisfying the minimum degree condition.
We will find a hamiltonian Berge cycle in ${\mathcal H}$.

Recall that $H=\partial_2({\mathcal H})$ denote the 2-shadow of ${\mathcal H}$, a graph on $V=V({\mathcal H})$.
Define a bipartite graph $B:= B[E({\mathcal H}), E(H)]$ with parts  $E({\mathcal H})$ and $E(H)$ and with edges $\{ h, xy\}$ where
 a hyperedge $h\in E({\mathcal H})$ is joined to the graph edge $xy\in E(H)$ if $\{ x, y\} \subseteq h$.
In the case of $\{ x,y\} \in {\mathcal H}$ we consider the edge $xy\in E(H)$ and $\{ x,y\} \in E({\mathcal H})$ as two distinct objects of $B$, so $B$ is indeed a bipartite graph (with $|E({\mathcal H})|+| E(H)|$ vertices and no loops).
Let $M$ be a maximum matching of $B$. So
$M$ can be considered as a partial injection of maximum size, i.e., a bijection $\phi$ between two subsets ${\mathcal M}\subseteq E({\mathcal H})$ and ${\mathcal E}\subseteq E(H)$
  such that $|{\mathcal M}|=|{\mathcal E}|$,  $\phi(m)\subseteq m$ for $m\in {\mathcal M}$ (and $\phi(m_1)\neq \phi(m_2)$ for $m_1\neq m_2$).
Consider the subgraph $G=(V,{\mathcal E})$ of $H$.   Then $G$ does not have a hamiltonian cycle, otherwise by replacing the edges of a hamiltonian cycle with their corresponding matched hyperedges in $M$, we obtain a hamiltonian Berge cycle in ${\mathcal H}$ (with representative vertices in the same order).
In this subsection we are going to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq331}
  \delta(G) \geq \lfloor (n-1)/2 \rfloor:=k.
\end{equation}
Since $G$ has no hamiltonian cycle and $k\geq 7$, if~\eqref{eq331} holds, then by Lemma~\ref{5G}, $G\in {\mathcal G}_1\cup \dots\cup {\mathcal G}_5$. We will consider this case and prove the remainder of Theorem~\ref{diracH} in the next subsection.

Let ${\mathcal H}_2:= E({\mathcal H})\cap \partial_2({\mathcal H})$, the set of 2-element edges of ${\mathcal H}$.
We may assume that among all maximum sized matchings of $B$ the matching $M$ maximizes $|{\mathcal M}\cap {\mathcal H}_2|$.
\begin{claim}\label{cl33}
  ${\mathcal H}_2\subseteq {\mathcal M}$, $\partial_2({\mathcal M})= E(H)$, and every $m\in E({\mathcal H})\setminus {\mathcal M}$ induces a complete graph in $G$.
  \end{claim}

\begin{proof}
If $m\in E({\mathcal H})$ contains an edge $e\in E(H)\setminus E(G)$ then one can enlarge the matching $M$ by adding $\{m,e\}$ to it, if it is possible.
Since $M$ is maximal, it cannot be enlarged, so $m\in {\mathcal M}$. This implies the second and the third statements.
We also obtained that if $\{x,y\}\in E({\mathcal H})$ then $xy\in E(G)$, so
  $\phi(m)=xy$ for some $m\in {\mathcal M}$.  In case of $|m|>2$ we can replace the pair $\{ m, xy\}$ by the pair $\{ \{ x,y\}, xy\}$ in $M$ and the new matching covers more edges from ${\mathcal H}_2$ than $M$ does (in the graph $B$). So $|m|=2$, all members of ${\mathcal H}_2$ must belong to ${\mathcal M}$.
   \end{proof}

To continue the proof of Theorem~\ref{diracH}, let $d:= \delta (G)$, $v\in V$ such that $D:=N_G(v)$, $|D|=d$.
Since $G$ is not hamiltonian, Theorem~\ref{th:D} gives $d\leq k$.
Let ${\mathcal H}_v$ denote the set of hyperedges of ${\mathcal H}$ containing the vertex $v$, ($\deg_{\mathcal H}(v)=|{\mathcal H}_v|$),
and split it into two parts, ${\mathcal H}_v= {\mathcal D}\cup {\mathcal L}$ where
  ${\mathcal D}:= \{ e\in E({\mathcal H}): v\in e \subseteq \{ v\} \cup D\}$ and ${\mathcal L}:= {\mathcal H}_v\setminus {\mathcal D}$.
Split ${\mathcal D}$ further into three parts according to the sizes of its edges,
${\mathcal D}={\mathcal D}^- \cup {\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3$ where ${\mathcal D}_i:= \{ e\in {\mathcal D}: |e|=i\}$ (for $i=2,3$) and ${\mathcal D}^-:= {\mathcal D}\setminus \left({\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3\right)$.
Since ${\mathcal D}$ can have at most $2^d$ members and we handle ${\mathcal D}_2$ and ${\mathcal D}_3$ separately we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq333}
|{\mathcal D}| \leq 2^d-d-\binom{d}{2} +|{\mathcal D}_2|+ |{\mathcal D}_3|.
  \end{equation}

Recall that the matching $M$ in the bipartite graph $B$ can be considered as a bijection $\phi: {\mathcal M} \to {\mathcal E}$,  where ${\mathcal M}\subseteq E({\mathcal H})$ and ${\mathcal E}\subseteq E(H)$.
Define another matching $M_2$ in $B$ by an injection $\phi_2: {\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3\to E(G)$ as follows.
If $m\in {\mathcal M} \cap ({\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3)$ then $\phi_2(m):= \phi(m)$. In particular, since ${\mathcal D}_2\subseteq {\mathcal M}$, if $\{ v,x\} \in {\mathcal D}_2$ then $\phi_2(\{ v,x\})=  vx$.
If $m= \{ v,x,y\} \in {\mathcal D}_3 \setminus {\mathcal M}$ then let $\phi_2(m):= xy$.
Since $\phi_2({\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3)\subseteq E(G)$ we can apply Theorem~\ref{matroid} to the matchings $M$ and $M_2$ in $B$ with $X_1:= {\mathcal M}$, $Y_1:= E(G)$, and $X_2:= {\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3$. So there exists a subfamily ${\mathcal L}_3\subseteq {\mathcal H} \setminus ({\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3)$ and a bijection
 $\phi_3: ({\mathcal D}_2\cup {\mathcal D}_3 \cup {\mathcal L}_3)\to E(G)$. The matching $M'$ defined by $\phi_3$ is also a largest matching of $B$.
Every $m\in {\mathcal L}$ has an element $x\notin D$, so $vx\notin E(G)$. If $m$ is not matched in $M'$, then we add $\{m, vx\}$ to $M'$ to get a larger matching. Hence $m \in {\mathcal L}_3$.
These yield
\begin{equation}\label{eq334}
|{\mathcal L}|\leq |{\mathcal L}_3| = e(G)-|{\mathcal D}_2|-|{\mathcal D}_3|.
  \end{equation}
Summing up~\eqref{eq333} and~\eqref{eq334}, then using the lower bound for $|{\mathcal H}_v|$ and the upper bound
of Theorem~\ref{Erdos} for $e(G)$ we obtain
\begin{equation*
2^k +1 \leq \deg_{\mathcal H}(v) \leq 2^d-\binom{d+1}{2} +e(n,d)
  \end{equation*}
The inequality $2^k +1 \leq  2^d-\binom{d+1}{2} +e(n,d)$  does not hold for $n\geq 15$ and $d< k$, e.g., for $(n,k,d) = (16, 7, 6)$, the right hand side is only $64-21+85 = 128$.
This completes the proof of $d=k$.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{diracH}, the end}\label{ss34}

We may assume that $G\in {\mathcal G}_1\cup \dots\cup {\mathcal G}_5$ by Lemma~\ref{5G},  $\phi$ is a bijection $\phi: {\mathcal M} \to E(G)$
 with $\phi(m)\subseteq m$ where ${\mathcal M}\subseteq E({\mathcal H})$, and Claim~\ref{cl33} holds.
Let ${\mathcal L}_v$ denote the set of edges  $m\in {\mathcal H}$ containing an edge $vy$ of $E(H)\setminus E(G)$. Note that ${\mathcal L}_v\subseteq {\mathcal M}$.
If $\deg_G(v)=k$, then the family ${\mathcal L}_v$ is non-empty, otherwise $\deg_{{\mathcal H}}(v) \leq 2^k$.

Call a graph $F$ with vertex set $V$ a {\em Berge graph of} ${\mathcal H}$ if $E(F)\subseteq E(H)$, and there exists a subhypergraph ${\mathcal F}\subseteq {\mathcal H}$, and a bijection $\psi:{\mathcal F} \to E(F)$ such that $\psi(m)\subseteq m$ for each $m\in {\mathcal F}$.
We are looking for a Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$ having a hamiltonian cycle.
In particular, the graph $G$ is a Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$ and it is almost hamiltonian. We will show that a slight change to $G$ yields a hamiltonian Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$.

If $G\in {\mathcal G}_2\cup {\mathcal G}_3$ then choose any $v\in V_1\setminus \{ x_0\}$  and let $m\in {\mathcal L}_v$. There exists an edge $vy\in \left(E(H)\setminus E(G)\right)$ contained in $m$. Then $y\in V_2\setminus \{ x_0\}$.
The graph $\left(E(G)\setminus \{ \phi(m) \}\right)\cup \{ vy\} $ is a Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$ (we map $m$ to the edge $vy$ instead of $\phi(m)$).
According to Lemma~\ref{5Gmodified} (with ${\mathcal A}:= \{ \phi(m)\}$ and  ${\mathcal B}:= \{ vy\}$) it is hamiltonian except if we run into the only exceptional case:
$x_0$ has exactly two $G$-neighbors $x_2$ and $y_2$ in $V_2$,  $vy=vx_2$, and $\phi(m)=x_0y_2$.
In this case $m$ contains $\{ x_0,v, x_2, y_2\}$ so it can be avoided by choosing $y:= y_2$ instead of $y=x_2$.

If $G\in {\mathcal G}_4$ then we argue in a very similar way.
Choose any $v\in V_2$  and let $m\in {\mathcal L}_v$ containing an edge $vy\in \left(E(H)\setminus E(G)\right)$. Then $y\in V_2$ and
 the graph $\left(E(G)\setminus \{ \phi(m) \}\right)\cup \{ vy\} $ is a Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$ that is hamiltonian by Lemma~\ref{5Gmodified} with ${\mathcal A}:= \{ \phi(m)\}$ and  ${\mathcal B}:= \{ vy\}$.
From now on we may suppose that $n=2k+2$ so $|{\mathcal L}_v|\geq 2$ for $\deg_G(v)=k$.

If $G\in {\mathcal G}_1$ then define ${\mathcal M}_{1,2}$ as the members of ${\mathcal M}$ meeting both $V_1$ and $V_2$.
The minimum degree condition on ${\mathcal H}$ implies that $|{\mathcal M}_{1,2}|\geq 2$.
Since ${\mathcal M}_{1,2}$ can have at most one member of size $2$, we can choose an $m_1$, $|m_1|\geq 3$. By symmetry we may suppose that $|m_1\cap V_1|\geq 2$ and let $x_2\in V_2\cap m_1$.
Choose an element $y\in V_2$, $y\notin e_0$, $y\neq x_2$.
Since $|{\mathcal L}_y|\geq 2$ we can choose an $m_2\in {\mathcal M}_{1,2}$ such that $m_1\neq m_2$ and $y\in m_2$.
Take any pair $\{ y_1,y\}\subseteq m_2$ with $y_1\in V_1$.  Then one can choose an $x_1\in m_1\cap V_1$ so that $x_1\neq x_2$. So the pairs $\{ x_1, x_2\}\subseteq m_1$ and $\{ y_1, y\}\subseteq m_2$ are disjoint.
Lemma~\ref{5Gmodified} with ${\mathcal A}:= \{ \phi(m_1), \phi(m_2)\}$ and ${\mathcal B}:= \{ x_1x_2, y_1y\}$ implies that the graph
$\left(E(G)\setminus {\mathcal A} \right)\cup {\mathcal B} $ is a hamiltonian Berge graph of ${\mathcal H}$.

If $G\in {\mathcal G}_5$ then $|{\mathcal L}_v|\geq 2$ for any $v\in V_2\setminus e_0$ and for all members $m$ of ${\mathcal L}_v$ we have $|m\cap V_2|\geq 2$.
Fix $v\in V_2\setminus e_0$ and let $m_1$ be an arbitrary member of ${\mathcal L}_v$. Choose a pair $\{ v,v'\} \subseteq m_1\cap V_2$.
Fix another vertex $u\in  V_2\setminus (e_0\cup \{ v,v'\})$ and let $m_2$ be an arbitrary member of ${\mathcal L}_u$. Choose a pair $\{ u,u'\} \subseteq m_2\cap V_2$. Then $u\notin \{ v,v'\}$ so the pairs  $\{ u,u'\}$ and $\{ v,v'\} $ are distinct. Again, apply Lemma~\ref{5Gmodified} with ${\mathcal A}:= \{ \phi(m_1), \phi(m_2)\}$ and ${\mathcal B}:= \{ uu', vv'\}$. This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{diracH}.
\hfill\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else\hfill$\Box$\fi

\begin{rem}
We can also show that all extremal examples are slight modifications of the four types of the sharpness examples described after Theorem~\ref{diracH}.
   \end{rem}

\section{Dirac-type conditions for long Berge cycles}\label{secCk}

In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_path} for Berge paths and Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_cycle} for Berge cycles. In fact we prove the two statements simultaneously.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorems~\ref{th:mindeg_path} and~\ref{th:mindeg_cycle}]
Suppose that $\delta({\mathcal H})\geq 2^{k-2}+1$, $k\geq 3$ and that ${\mathcal H}$ has no Berge cycle of length $k$ or longer.
We will show that it contains a Berge path of length $k-1$ (thus establishing Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_path}) and then that $\delta({\mathcal H})= 2^{k-2}+1$ (which completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_cycle}).

Choose a longest Berge path in ${\mathcal H}$ according the following rules.
We say that a Berge path
 with edges $\{e_1,\dots,e_s\}$ is \emph{better} than a Berge path
 with edges $\{f_1,\dots,f_t\}$ if
\newline\indent${}$\quad
a) $s>t$  or
\newline\indent${}$\quad
b) $s=t$ and $\sum |e_i|<\sum |f_j|$.

Consider a best Berge path ${\mathcal P}$ in ${\mathcal H}$.
Let the base vertices of the path be $v_1, v_2, \dots,  v_p$.
Let $e_1, \dots ,e_{p-1}$ be the edges of the path ($v_{i}, v_{i+1}\in e_i$).
First, we show that $p\geq k-1$.
(In fact, $p\geq k$ follows but that will be proved later).

Indeed, let ${\mathcal H}^{(p)}$ be the hypergraph consisting of the edges of ${\mathcal H}$
 containing $v_p$, contained in $\{ v_1, \dots, v_p \}$ and also the edges of the path, i.e.,
\[
 E({\mathcal H}^{(p)}):=\{ e\in E({\mathcal H}): v_p\in e\subseteq \{ v_1, \dots, v_p\}\} \cup \{e_1, \dots ,e_{p-1} \}.
 \]
Then for $p\leq k-2$ (and $k\geq 3$) we have
\[
|E({\mathcal H}^{(p)})|\leq 2^{p-1}+ (p-1)\leq 2^{k-2}< \delta({\mathcal H})\leq \deg_{\mathcal H}(v_p).
\]
So there exits an edge $f$ in $E({\mathcal H})\setminus E({\mathcal H}^{(p)})$ containing $v_p$.
Then  $e_1, \dots ,e_{p-1},f$ form a Berge path longer than ${\mathcal P}$, a contradiction.

Now we have $p\geq k-1$, so we can define $W:=\{ v_1, \dots, v_{k-1}\}$. Let ${\mathcal P}_1$ be the subhypergraph consisting of the first $k-1$  edges of ${\mathcal P}$,
  $E({\mathcal P}_1):= \{ e_1, ..., e_{k-1}\}$
  (if $p=k-1$ we take ${\mathcal P}_1:={\mathcal P}$).
Let ${\mathcal H}_1$ be the subhypergraph of ${\mathcal H}$ consisting of the edges incident to $v_1$.

\begin{claim}\label{cl:52}
Every edge $f\in E({\mathcal H}_1)\setminus E({\mathcal P}_1)$ is contained in $W:=\{ v_1, \dots, v_{k-1}\}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that every edge $f\in E({\mathcal H}_1)\setminus E({\mathcal P}_1)$ avoids $\{v_k, \dots, v_p\}$.
Otherwise, if there exists an edge $f\in E({\mathcal H}_1)\setminus E({\mathcal P}_1)$ such that
  $f\cap \{v_k, \dots, v_p\} \neq \emptyset$, then suppose that
  $v_i$ has the minimum index ($k\leq i\leq p $) such that $v_i$ is a vertex of such an $f$.
Then $e_1, \dots, e_{i-1}$ and $f$ are forming a Berge cycle of length $i$, since these hyperedges are all distinct and $v_1,v_i\in f$.
Finally, suppose that there is an edge  $f\in E({\mathcal H}_1)\setminus E({\mathcal P}_1)$
  such that $v\in f$, $v\notin W$.
Then $v\notin \{ v_1, \dots, v_p\}$ so the path $f, e_1, \dots, v_p$ is longer than ${\mathcal P}$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

Let ${\mathcal K}$ be the family of all $2^{k-2}$ subsets of $W$ that  contain $v_1$. We claim there is a one-to-one mapping $\varphi$ from ${\mathcal H}_1 \setminus e_{k-1}$ to ${\mathcal K}$. The existence of such a $\varphi$ implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq41}
  \delta({\mathcal H})\leq \deg_{\mathcal H}(v_1) \leq 2^{k-2} + 1.
\end{equation}

If an edge $e$ of ${\mathcal H}_1$ satisfies $e \subseteq W$, then let $\varphi(e) = e$. Otherwise, let ${\mathcal A} \subseteq {\mathcal H}_1$  be the set of the edges of ${\mathcal H} \setminus \{e_{k-1}\}$ that contain both $v_1$ and some vertex outside of $W$. By Claim~\ref{cl:52}, each $e \in {\mathcal A}$ must be some edge $e_i$ in ${\mathcal P}_1$. Hence it remains to show that all elements of ${\mathcal A}$ can be mapped to  distinct elements of ${\mathcal K}$ that are not  edges of ${\mathcal H}$.

Observe that if $e_i\in {\mathcal A}$ then $\{v_i,v_{i+1}\}\notin {\mathcal H}$.
Otherwise, we get a better path by replacing $e_i$ by $\{v_i,v_{i+1}\}$.
Also, for $1\leq i\leq k-2$, $e_i\in {\mathcal A}$ implies $v_1\in e_i$ and $\{v_i,v_{i+1}\}\subset e_i$.
Since $e_i\not \subset W$ we get $|e_i|\geq 4$ for $i\geq 2$.
We also obtain that in case of $i\geq 3$, $e_i\in {\mathcal A}$ we have $\{v_1, v_i,v_{i+1}\}\notin {\mathcal P} $, and moreover $\{v_1,v_i,v_{i+1}\} \notin {\mathcal H}$ since otherwise we get a better path by replacing $e_i$ by $\{v_1, v_i,v_{i+1}\}$.
For $3\leq i\leq k-2$ (and $e_i\in {\mathcal A}$) define $\varphi(e_i)$ as $\{v_1, v_i,v_{i+1}\}$.

If $e_2\in {\mathcal A}$  and $\{ v_1, v_2, v_3 \}\not \in {\mathcal H}$ then
 we proceed as above,  $\varphi(e_2):=\{ v_1, v_2, v_3 \}$. Otherwise, if $e_2\in {\mathcal A}$ (so $|e_2|\geq 4$) and $\{ v_1, v_2, v_3 \}\in {\mathcal H}$ then
 $\{ v_1, v_2, v_3 \}\in {\mathcal P}$ too (otherwise, we get a better path by replacing $e_2$ by $\{v_1, v_2,v_3\}$).
We get $e_1=\{ v_1, v_2, v_3 \}$ (and $e_1 \subset e_2$).
We claim that $\{ v_1, v_3\}\notin {\mathcal H}$.
Otherwise we rearrange the base vertices of the path ${\mathcal P}$ by exchanging $v_1$ and $v_2$ (and get the order $v_2, v_1, v_3, \dots, v_{p}$) and observe that the Berge path  $\{ v_2, v_1, v_3\}, \{ v_1, v_3 \}, e_3, \dots, e_{p-1}$ is better than ${\mathcal P}$, a contradiction. So in this case $\varphi(e_2):= \{ v_1, v_3 \}$. Finally, if $e_1\in {\mathcal A}$ then $\varphi(e_1):= \{ v_1, v_2 \}$, and the definition of $\varphi$ is complete.

We have shown that $\deg_{\mathcal H}(v_1) \leq |{\mathcal H}_1 \setminus \{e_{k-1}\}| +1 \leq 2^{k-2} +1$. Equality holds, so $v_1 \in e_{k-1}$. In particular $e_{k-1}$ must exist, so ${\mathcal P}$ was a Berge path of length at least $k-1$.
\end{proof}

\medskip
Our method works for multihypergraphs as well.
If the maximum multiplicity of an edge is $\mu$, then the corresponding necessary bounds on the minimum degrees are $\mu 2^{k-2}+1$ or $\mu 2^{k-2}+2$, respectively.
Indeed, suppose that  $\delta({\mathcal F})\geq \mu 2^{k-2}+1$, $k\geq 3$ and that ${\mathcal F}$ has no Berge cycle of length $k$ or longer.
Let ${\mathcal H}$ be the simple hypergraph obtained from ${\mathcal F}$ by keeping one copy from the multiple edges. We have $\delta({\mathcal H})\geq 2^{k-2}+1$.
Then Theorems~\ref{th:mindeg_path} implies that ${\mathcal H}$ (and ${\mathcal F}$ as well) contain a Berge path with $k$ base vertices.

As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:mindeg_cycle}, consider a best Berge path ${\mathcal P}$ in ${\mathcal H}$ with
 base vertices  $v_1, v_2, \dots,  v_p$ and edges $e_1, \dots ,e_{p-1}$. We have $p\geq k$.
Then~\eqref{eq41} gives $\deg_{\mathcal H}(v_1)= 2^{k-2} + 1$ and we get
 $\deg_{\mathcal H}(v_1)= |{\mathcal H}_1 \setminus \{e_{k-1}\}| +1$.
Since we also obtained $\{v_1, v_{k-1}, v_k\} \subset e_{k-1}$, the multiplicity of $e_{k-1}$ could not exceed $1$. So
$\delta({\mathcal F})$ could not exceed $\mu 2^{k-2}+1$.

\section{Maximum number of edges}
\noindent{\em Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:EGh}.}\enskip
Suppose that among all $n$-vertex hypergraphs with $c({\mathcal H})<k$ and $e({\mathcal H})$ edges our ${\mathcal H}$ is chosen so that $\sum_{e \in E({\mathcal H})} |e|$ is minimized.

We claim that ${\mathcal H}$ is a downset, that is, for any $e \in E({\mathcal H})$ and $e' \subset e$, $e' \in E({\mathcal H})$.
Indeed, if there exists a set $e'$ and a hypergedge $e$ such that  $e' \subset e$ such that $e' \notin E({\mathcal H})$ and $e \in E({\mathcal H})$, then the hypergraph obtained by replacing $e$ with $e'$ also does not contain a Berge cyle of length $k$ or longer. This contradicts the choice of ${\mathcal H}$.

Let $H = \partial_2{\mathcal H}$ be the 2-shadow of ${\mathcal H}$. Suppose that $H$ contains a cycle $C = v_1 v_2 \ldots v_\ell v_1$. Every edge $v_iv_{i+1}$ of $C$ is contained in a hyperedge of ${\mathcal H}$. But since ${\mathcal H}$ is a downset, the hyperedge $\{v_i, v_{i+1}\}$ is also contained in $E({\mathcal H})$. Therefore ${\mathcal H}$ also contains a (Berge) cycle of length $\ell$. Hence the graph $H$ contains no cycles of length at least $k$.

Let $e_r({\mathcal H})$ be the number of hyperedges of ${\mathcal H}$ of size $r$. In $H$, every hyperedge $e$ of ${\mathcal H}$ is represented by a clique of order $|e|$, and so $e_r({\mathcal H})$ is at most the number of cliques of size $r$ in $H$.
Since $c(H)<k$, each hyperedge contains at most $k-1$ vertices.
By Theorem~\ref{cliques},
\[e({\mathcal H}) = e_0({\mathcal H})+ e_1({\mathcal H})+ \sum_{r=2}^{k-1} e_r({\mathcal H}) \leq 1+ n+ \sum_{r=2}^{k-1}\frac{n-1}{k-2}{k-1 \choose r} = 2+ \frac{n-1}{k-2}\left(2^{k-1}-2\right). \hfill\ifhmode\unskip\nobreak\fi\quad\ifmmode\Box\else\hfill$\Box$\fi \]

Berge cycles in non-uniform hypergraphs


Leinartas's partial fraction decomposition

Abstract: These notes describe Leinartas's algorithm for multivariate partial fraction decompositions and employ an implementation thereof in Sage.

\section{Introduction}

In \cite{Lein1978}, Le{\u\i}nartas\  gave an algorithm for decomposing multivariate rational expressions into partial fractions.
In these notes I re-present Le{\u\i}nartas's\  algorithm, because it is not well-known, because its English translation \cite{Lein1978} is difficult to find, and because it is useful e.g. for computing residues of multivariate rational functions; see \cite[Chapter 3]{AiYu1983} and \cite{RaWi2012}.

Along the way I include examples that employ an open-source implementation of Le{\u\i}nartas's\  algorithm that I wrote in Sage \cite{Sage}.
The code can be downloaded from \href{http://www.alexraichev.org/research.html}{my website} and is currently under peer review for incorporation into the Sage codebase.

For a different type of multivariate partial fraction decomposition, one that uses iterated univariate partial fraction decompositions, see \cite{Stou2008}.
\section{Algorithm}

Henceforth let $K$ be a field and $\overline{K}$ its algebraic closure.
We will work in the factorial polynomial rings $K[X]$ and $\overline{K}[X]$, where $X = X_1,\ldots, X_d$ with $d \ge 1$.
Le{\u\i}nartas's\  algorithm is contained in the constructive proof of the following theorem, which is \cite[Theorem 1]{Lein1978}\footnote{
Le{\u\i}nartas\  used $K = \mathbb{C}$, but that is an unnecessary restriction.
By the way, Le{\u\i}nartas's\  article contains typos in equation (c) on the second page, equation (b) on the third page, and the equation immediately after equation (d) on the third page: the right sides of those equations should be multiplied by $P$.
}.

\begin{theorem}[Le{\u\i}nartas\  decompositon]\label{leinartas-decomp}
Let $f = p/q$, where $p, q \in K[X]$.
Let $q = q_1^{e_1} \cdots q_m^{e_m}$ be the unique factorization of $q$ in $K[X]$, and let $V_i = \{x \in \overline{K}^d : q_i(x) = 0 \}$, the algebraic variety of $q_i$ over $\overline{K}$.

The rational expression $f$ can be written in the form
\[
    f = \sum_A \frac{p_A}{\prod_{i \in A} q_i^{b_i}},
\]
where the $b_i$ are positive integers (possibly greater than the $e_i$), the $p_A$ are polynomials in $K[X]$ (possibly zero), and the sum is taken over all subsets $A \subseteq \{1,\ldots, m\}$ such that $\cap_{i \in A} V_i \neq \emptyset$ and $\{q_i : i \in A\}$ is algebraically independent (and necessarily $|A| \le d$).
\end{theorem}

Let us call a decomposition of the form above a \hl{Le{\u\i}nartas\  decomposition}.
An immediate consequence of the theorem is the following.

\begin{corollary}
Every rational expression in $d$ variables can be represented as a sum of rational expressions each of whose denominators contains at most $d$ unique irreducible factors.
\qed
\end{corollary}

Now for a constructive proof of the theorem.
It involves two steps: decomposing $f$ via the Nullstellensatz and then decomposing each resulting summand via algebraic dependence.
We need a few lemmas.

The following lemma is a strengthening of the weak Nullstellensatz and is proved in \cite[Lemma 3.2]{DLMM2008}.

\begin{lemma}[Nullstellensatz certificate]\label{null-cert}
A finite set of polynomials $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m \} \subset K[X]$ has no common zero in $\overline{K}^d$ iff there exist polynomials $h_1, \ldots, h_m \in K[X]$ such that
\[
    1 = \sum_{i=1}^m h_i q_i.
\]
Moreover, if $K$ is a computable field, then there is a computable procedure to check whether or not the $q_i$ have a common zero in $\overline{K}^d$ and, if not, return the $h_i$.
\qed
\end{lemma}

Let us call a sequence of polynomials $h_i$ satisfying the equation above a \hl{Nullstellensatz certificate} for the $q_i$.
Note that in contrast to the usual weak Nullstellensatz, here the polynomials $h_i$ are in $K[X]$ and not just in $\overline{K}[X]$.

Some examples of computable fields are finite fields, $\mathbb{Q}$, finite degree extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$, and $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.

Applying Lemma~\ref{null-cert} we get the following lemma \cite[Lemma 3]{Lein1978}.

\begin{lemma}[Nullstellensatz decomposition]\label{null-decomp}
Under the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{leinartas-decomp},
the rational expression $f$ can be written in the form
    \[
        f = \sum_A \frac{p_A}{\prod_{i \in A} q_i^{e_i}},
    \]
where the $p_A$ are polynomials in $K[X]$ (possibly zero) and the sum is taken over all subsets $A \subseteq \{1,\ldots, m\}$ such that $\cap_{i \in A} V_i \neq \emptyset$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $\cap_{i=1}^m V_i \neq \emptyset$, then the result holds.

Suppose now that $\cap_{i=1}^m V_i = \emptyset$.
Then the polynomials $q_i^{e_i}$ have no common zero in $\overline{K}^d$.
So by Lemma~\ref{null-cert}
\[
    1 = h_1 q_1^{e_1} + \cdots + h_m q_m^{e_m}
\]
for some polynomials $h_i$ in $K[X]$.
Multiplying both sides of the equation by $p/q$ yields
\begin{align*}
    f
    &=
    \frac{p (h_1 q_1^{e_1} + \cdots + h_m q_m^{e_m})}{q_1^{e_1} \cdots
    q_m^{e_m}} \\
    &=
    \sum_{i=1}^m \frac{p h_i}{q_1^{e_1} \cdots \widehat{q_i^{e_i}} \cdots
    q_m^{e_m}}
\end{align*}
Note that $p h_i \in K[X]$.

Next we check each summand $p h_i/(q_1^{e_1} \cdots \widehat{q_i^{e_i}} \cdots q_m^{e_m})$ to see whether $\cap_{j \neq i } V_j \neq \emptyset$.
If so, then stop.
If not, then apply Lemma~\ref{null-cert} to ${q_1^{e_1}, \ldots \widehat{q_i^{e_i}}, \ldots q_m^{e_m}}$.

Repeating this procedure until it stops yields the desired result.
The procedure must stop, because each $V_i \neq \emptyset$ since each $q_i$ is irreducible in $K[X]$ and hence not a unit in $K[X]$.
\end{proof}

Let us call a decomposition of the form above a \hl{Nullstellensatz decomposition}.

\begin{example}
Consider the rational expression
\[
    f := \frac{X^2 Y + X Y^2 + X Y + X + Y}{X Y (X Y + 1)}
\]
in $\mathbb{Q}(X,Y)$.
Let $p$ denote the numerator of $f$.
The irreducible polynomials $X, Y, XY + 1 \in \mathbb{Q}[X, Y]$ in the denominator have no common zero in $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^2$.
So they have a Nullstellensatz certificate, e.g. $(-Y, 0, 1)$:
\[
    1 = (-Y)X + (0)X + (1)(XY + 1).
\]

Applying the algorithm in the proof of Lemma~\ref{null-decomp} gives us a Nullstellensatz decomposition for $f$ in one iteration:
\begin{align*}
    f
    =& \frac{p(-Y)}{Y(XY + 1)} + \frac{p(1)}{XY} \\
    =& \frac{-p}{XY + 1} + \frac{p}{XY} \\
    =& -X -Y -1 + \frac{1}{X Y + 1} + X + Y + 1 + \frac{X + Y}{XY} \\
     & \text{(after applying the division algorithm)} \\
    =& \frac{1}{X Y + 1} + \frac{X + Y}{XY}.
\end{align*}
Notice that
\[
    f = \frac{1}{X} + \frac{1}{Y} + \frac{1}{XY + 1}
\]
is also a Nullstellensatz decomposition for $f$.
So Nullstellensatz decompositions are not unique.
\end{example}

The next lemma is a classic in computational commutative algebra; see e.g. \cite{Kaya2009}.

\begin{lemma}[Algebraic dependence certificate]\label{algdep-cert}
Any set $S$ of polynomials in $K[X]$ of size $> d$ is algebraically dependent.
Moreover, if $K$ is a computable field and $S$ is finite, then there is a computable procedure that checks whether or not $S$ is algebraically dependent and, if so, returns an annihilating polynomial over $K$ for $S$.
\qed
\end{lemma}

The next lemma is \cite[Lemma 1]{Lein1978}.

\begin{lemma}\label{algdep-powers}
A finite set of polynomials $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\} \subset K[X]$ is algebraically dependent iff for all positive integers $e_1, \ldots, e_m$ the set of polynomials $\{q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m}\}$ is algebraically dependent.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
A set of polynomials $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\} \subset K[X]$ is algebraically independent
iff the $m \times d$ Jacobian matrix $J(q_1, \ldots, q_m) := \left( \frac{\partial q_i}{\partial X_j}\right)$ over the vector space $K(X)^d$ has rank $m$ (by the Jacobian criterion; see e.g. \cite{EhRo1993})
iff for all positive integers $e_i$ the matrix $\left(e_i q_i^{e_i -1} \frac{\partial q_i}{\partial X_j}\right) = J(q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m})$ over the vector space $K(X)^d$ has rank $m$ (since we are just taking scalar multiples of rows) iff the set of polynomials $q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m}$ is algebraically independent (by the Jacobian criterion).

Moreover, if $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\}$ is algebraically dependent, then any member of the (necessarily nonempty) elimination ideal
\[
\langle Y_1 - q_1, \ldots, Y_m - q_m, Y_1^{e_1} - Z_1, \ldots, Y_m^{e_m} - Z_m \rangle_{K[X,Y,Z]} \cap K[Z_1, \ldots, Z_m],
\]
is an annihilating polynomial for $q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m}$.
Moreover a finite basis for the elimination ideal can be computed using Groebner bases; see e.g. \cite[Chapter 3]{CLO2007}.
\end{proof}

Applying the previous two lemmas we get our final lemma \cite[Lemma 2]{Lein1978}.

\begin{lemma}[Algebraic dependence decomposition]\label{algdep-decomp}
Under the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{leinartas-decomp},
the rational expression $f$ can be written in the form
    \[
        f = \sum_A \frac{p_A}{\prod_{i \in A} q_i^{b_i}},
    \]
where the $b_i$ are positive integers (possibly greater than the $e_i$), the $p_A$ are polynomials in $K[X]$ (possibly zero), and the sum is taken over all subsets $A \subseteq \{1,\ldots, m\}$ such that $\{q_i : i \in A\}$ is algebraically independent (and necessarily $|A| \le d$).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\}$ is algebraically independent, then the result holds.
Notice that in this case $m \le d$ by Lemma~\ref{algdep-cert}.

Suppose now that $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\}$ is algebraically dependent.
Then so is $\{q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m}\}$ by Lemma~\ref{algdep-powers}.
Let $g = \sum_{\nu \in S} c_\nu Y^\nu \in K[Y_1, \ldots, Y_m]$ be an annihilating polynomial for $\{q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m}\}$, where $S \subset \mathbb{N}^m$ is the set of multi-indices such that $c_\nu \neq 0$.
Choose a multi-index $\alpha \in S$ of smallest norm $||\alpha|| = \alpha_1 + \cdots + \alpha_m$.
Then at $Q:= (q_1^{e_1}, \ldots, q_m^{e_m})$ we have
\begin{align*}
    g(Q)
    &= 0 \\
    c_\alpha Q^\alpha
    &= -\sum_{\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}} c_\nu Q^\nu \\
    1
    &= \frac{-\sum_{\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}} c_\nu Q^\nu}{c_\alpha Q^\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Multiplying both sides of the last equation by $p / q$ yields
\begin{align*}
    \frac{p}{q}
    &= \sum_{\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}}
    \frac{-p c_\nu Q^\nu}{c_\alpha Q^{\alpha + 1}} \\
    &=
    \sum_{\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}} \frac{-p c_\nu}{c_\alpha}
    \prod_{i=1}^m \frac{q_i^{e_i \nu_i}}{q_i^{e_i(\alpha_i + 1)}} \\
\end{align*}
Since $\alpha$ has the smallest norm in $S$ it follows that for any $\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}$ there exists $i$ such that $\alpha_i + 1 \le \nu_i$, so that $e_i(\alpha_i + 1) \le e_i \nu_i$.
So for each $\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}$, some polynomial $q_i^{e_i (\alpha_i + 1)}$ in the denominator of the right side of the last equation cancels.

Repeating this procedure yields the desired result.
\end{proof}

Let us call a decomposition of the form above an \hl{algebraic dependence decomposition}.

\begin{example}
Consider the rational expression
\[
    f := \frac{(X^2 Y^2 + X^2 Y Z + X Y^2 Z + 2 X Y Z + X Z^2 + Y Z^2)}{X Y Z (X Y + Z)}
\]
in $\mathbb{Q}(X,Y,Z)$.
Let $p$ denote the numerator of $f$.
The irreducible polynomials $X, Y, Z, XY + Z \in \mathbb{Q}[X,Y,Z]$ in the denominator are four in number, which is greater than the number of ring indeterminates, and so they are algebraically dependent.
An annihilating polynomial for them is $g(A,B,C,D) = AB  + C - D$.

Applying the algorithm in the proof of Lemma~\ref{algdep-decomp} gives us an algebraic dependence decomposition for $f$ in one iteration:
\begin{align*}
    f
    =& \sum_{\nu \in S \setminus{\{\alpha\}}}
       \frac{-p c_\nu Q^\nu}{c_\alpha Q^{\alpha + 1}} \\
     & \text{where $Q = (X,Y,Z,XY + Z)$ and $\alpha = (0,0,0,1)$} \\
    =& \frac{pQ^{(1,1,0,0)}}{Q^{(1,1,1,2)}} + \frac{pQ^{(0,0,1,0)}}{Q^{(1,1,1,2)}} \\
    =& \frac{p}{Q^{(0,0,1,2)}} + \frac{p}{Q^{(1,1,0,2)}} \\
    =& \frac{p}{Z (XY + Z)^2} + \frac{p}{XY(XY + Z)^2}.
\end{align*}

Notice that in this example the exponent 2 of the irreducible factor $XY + Z$ in the denominators of the decomposition is larger than the exponent 1 of $XY + Z$ in the denominator of $f$.
Notice also that
\[
    f = \frac{1}{X} + \frac{1}{Y} + \frac{1}{Z} + \frac{1}{XY + Z}
\]
is also an algebraic dependence decomposition for $f$.
So algebraic dependence decompositions are not unique.
\end{example}

Finally, here is Le{\u\i}nartas's\  algorithm.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{leinartas-decomp}]
First find the irreducible factorization of $q$ in $K[X]$.
This is a computable procedure if $K$ is computable.
Then decompose $f$ via Lemma~\ref{null-decomp}.
Finally decompose each summand of the result via Lemma~\ref{algdep-decomp}.
As highlighted above, the last two steps are computable if $K$ is.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Consider the rational expression
\[
    f := \frac{2X^2 Y + 4X Y^2 + Y^3 - X^2 - 3 X Y - Y^2}{X Y (X + Y) (Y - 1)}
\]
in $\mathbb{Q}(X,Y)$.
Computing a Nullstellensatz decomposition according to the proof of Lemma~\ref{null-decomp} with Nullstellensatz combination $1 = 0(X) + 1(Y) + 0(X + Y) -1(Y - 1)$ yields
\begin{align*}
    f =& X - Y + \frac{Y^3 + X^2 - Y^2 + X}{X(Y-1)} +
         \frac{X^2 Y - 2X^2 - XY}{(X + Y)(Y - 1)} +\\
       & \frac{-2X^3 - Y^3 - 2X^2 + Y^2}{X(X + Y)} +
         \frac{2X^2 Y - Y^3 + X^2 + 3X Y + Y^2}{XY(X + Y)}.
\end{align*}

Computing an algebraic dependence decomposition for the last term according to the proof of Lemma~\ref{algdep-decomp} with annihilating polynomial $g(A,B,C) = A + B - C$ for $(X, Y, X + Y)$ yields
\begin{align*}
    & \frac{2X^2 Y - Y^3 + X^2 + 3X Y + Y^2}{XY(X + Y)} \\
    &= 1 + \frac{2X^2 Y - Y^3 + X^2 + 3X Y + Y^2}{XY^2} +
      \frac{-2X^2 Y - XY^2 - X^2 - 3XY - Y^2}{Y^2 (X + Y)}.
\end{align*}

The two equalities taken together give us a Le{\u\i}nartas\  decomposition for $f$.

Notice that
\[
    f =  \frac{1}{X} + \frac{1}{Y} + \frac{1}{X + Y} + \frac{1}{Y - 1}
\]
is also a Le{\u\i}nartas\  decomposition of $f$.
So Le{\u\i}nartas\  decompositions are not unique.
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
In case $d=1$, Le{\u\i}nartas\  decompositions are unique once the fractions are written in lowest terms (and one disregards summand order).
To see this, note that a Le{\u\i}nartas\  decomposition of a univariate rational expression $f = p/q$ must have fractions all of the form $p_i/q_i^{e_i}$, where $q = q_1^{e_1} \cdots q_m^{e_m}$ is the unique factorization of $q$ in $K[X]$.
This is because two or more univariate polynomials are algebraically dependent (by Lemma~\ref{algdep-cert}).
Assume without loss of generality here that $\deg(p) < \deg(q)$.
It follows that if we have two Le{\u\i}nartas's\  decompositions of $p/q$, then we can write them in the form $a_1/q' + a_2/q'' = b_1/q' + b_2/q''$, where $q = q'q''$ with $q'$ and $q''$ coprime, $\deg(a_1), \deg(b_1) < \deg(q')$, and $\deg(a_2), \deg(b_2) < \deg(q'')$.
Multiplying the equality by $q$ we get $a_1q'' + a_2q' = b_1q'' + b_2q'$.
So $a_1 \equiv b_1 \pmod{q'}$ and $a_2 \equiv b_2 \pmod{q''}$.
Thus $a_1 = b_1$ and $a_2 = b_2$.
This observation used inductively demonstrates uniqueness.

This argument fails in case $d \ge 2$, because then a Le{\u\i}nartas\  decomposition might not have fractions all of the form $p_i/q_i^{e_i}$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
A rational expression already with $\cap_{i=1}^m V_i \neq \emptyset$ and $\{q_1, \ldots, q_m\}$ algebraically independent, can not necessarily be decomposed further into partial fractions.
For example,
\[
	f = \frac{1}{X_1 X_2 \cdots X_m} \in K(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_d),
\]
with $m \le d$ can not equal a sum of rational expressions whose denominators each contain fewer than $m$ of the $X_i$.
Otherwise, multiplying the equation by $X_1 X_2 \cdots X_m$ would yield
\[
	1 = \sum_{i\in B} h_i X_i
\]
for some $h_i \in K[X]$ and some nonempty subset $B\subseteq \{1, 2, \ldots, m\}$, a contradiction to Lemma~\ref{null-cert} since $\{X_i : i\in B\}$ have a common zero in $\overline{K}^d$, namely the zero tuple.
\end{remark}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}

Commutative Algebra (math.AC); Combinatorics (math.CO)


A Property of the Frobenius Map of a Polynomial Ring

Abstract: Let R be a ring of polynomials in a finite number of variables over a perfect field k of characteristic p>0 and let F:R\to R be the Frobenius map of R, i.e. F(r)=r^p. We explicitly describe an R-module isomorphism Hom_R(F_*(M),N)\cong Hom_R(M,F^*(N)) for all R-modules M and N. Some recent and potential applications are discussed.

\section{Introduction}
The main result of this paper is Theorem \ref{main} which is a type of adjointness property for the Frobenius map of a polynomial ring over a perfect field. The interest in this fairly elementary result comes from its striking recent applications (see \cite[Sections 5 and 6]{WZ} and \cite{YZ}) and also from the fact that despite extensive inquiries we have not been able to find it in the published literature.

Especially interesting is the application in \cite{YZ} where a striking new result on local cohomology modules in characteristic $p>0$ is deduced from Theorem \ref{main}. There is no doubt that the same result is true in characteristic 0, but the only currently known (to us) proof is in characteristic $p>0$, based on Theorem \ref{main}. This has motivated what promises to be a very interesting search for some new technique to extend the result in \cite{YZ} to characteristic 0.

We believe the results of this paper hold a potential for further applications and we discuss some of them in the last section.

\section{Preliminaries}
Let $R$ be a regular (but not necessarily local) UFD, let $R_s$ and $R_t$ be two copies of $R$ (the subscripts stand for {\it source} and {\it target}) and let $F:R_s\to R_t$ be a finite ring homomorphism. Let $$F_*:R_t{\rm -mod}\to R_s{\rm -mod}$$ be the restriction of scalars functor (i.e. $F_*(M)$ for every $R_t$-module $M$ is the additive group of $M$ regarded as an $R_s$-module via $F$) and let $$F^!, F^*:R_s{\rm -mod}\to R_t{\rm -mod}$$ be the functors defined by $F^!(N)={\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_t,N)$ and $F^*(N)=R_t\otimes_{R_s}N$ for every $R_s$-module $N$.

$F^*(N)$ and $F^!(N)$, for an $R_s$-module $N$, have a structure of $R_s$-module via the natural $R_s$-action on $R_t$, while $F_*(M)$, for an $R_t$-module $M$, retains its old $R_t$-module structure (from before the restriction of scalars). Thus $F^*(N), F^!(N)$,  and $F_*(M)$ are both $R_s$- and $R_t$-modules.

It is well-known that $F^*$ is left-adjoint to $F_*$, i.e. there is an isomorphism of $R_t$-modules
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{adj4}
{\rm Hom}_{R_t}(F^*(N), M)&\cong &&{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(N,F_*(M))\\
f&\mapsto &&(n\mapsto f(1\otimes n))\notag \\
(r\otimes n\mapsto rf(n))&\leftarrow &&f\notag
\end{alignat}
which is functorial in $M$ and $N$ (see, for example, \cite[II.5, p.110]{Ha}). This holds without any restrictions on $R$.

The main result of this paper is based on a different type of adjointness (see \ref{adj3} below) which is certainly not well-known (we could not find a reference). Unlike (\ref{adj4}) it is not quite canonical but depends on a choice of a certain isomorphism $\phi$ (described in (\ref{phi}) below). And it requires the conditions we imposed on $R$, namely, a regular UFD.

Since $R_t$, being regular, is locally Cohen-Macaulay, it follows from the Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem that the projective dimension of $R_t$ as $R_s$-module is zero, i.e. $R_t$ is projective, hence locally free, as an $R_s$-module. It is a standard fact that in this case $F^!$ is right adjoint to $F_*$, \cite[Ch. 3, Exercise 6.10]{Ha} i.e. for every $R_t$-module $M$ and every $R_s$-module $N$ there is an $R_t$-module isomorphism
\begin{alignat}{1}\label{adj1}
{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*(M),N)\cong&{\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M,F^!(N))\\
(m\mapsto \mathfrak f(1))\leftarrow& f\notag
\end{alignat}
where $\mathfrak f=f(m):R_t\to N$. This isomorphism is functorial both in $M$ and in $N$.

Consider the $R_t$-module $H\stackrel{\rm def}{=}{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_t,R_s)$. Since $R_t$ is a locally free $R_s$-module of finite rank, it is a standard fact \cite[Ch 2, Exercise 5.1(b)]{Ha} that there is an isomorphism of functors
\begin{align}\label{f^!}
F^!\cong H\otimes_{R_s}-,
\end{align}
i.e. for every $R_s$-module $N$ there is an $R_t$-module isomorphism
\begin{align}\label{f^!'}
H\otimes_{R_s}N&\cong {\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_t,N)\\
\notag h\otimes n&\mapsto (r\mapsto h(r)n)
\end{align}
and this isomorphism is functorial in $N$. Replacing $F^!$ by $H\otimes_{R_s}-$ in (\ref{adj1}) produces an $R_t$-module isomorphism
\begin{align}\label{adj2}
{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*(M),N)\cong {\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M, H\otimes_{R_s}N).
\end{align}
which is functorial in $M$ and $N$.

It follows from \cite[Kor. 5.14]{KM} that locally $H$ is the canonical module of $R_t$. In particular, the rank of $H$ as $R_t$-module is 1 and therefore $H$ is $R_t$-module isomorphic to some ideal $I$ of $R_t$. According to \cite[Kor. 6.13]{KM} the quotient $R_t/I$ is locally Gorenstein of dimension dim$R_t-1$, hence $I$ has pure height 1. Since $R_t$ is a UFD, $I$ is principal, i.e. there is an $R_t$-module isomorphism
\begin{align}\label{phi}
\phi:R_t\to H.
\end{align}
Hence $\phi$ induces an isomorphism of functors
\begin{align}\label{f^*}
R_t\otimes_{R_s}-\stackrel{\phi\otimes{\rm id}}{\cong} H\otimes_{R_s}-.
\end{align}
Replacing $H\otimes_{R_s}-$ by $F^*=R_t\otimes_{R_s}-$ in (\ref{adj2}) via (\ref{f^*}) produces an $R_t$-module isomorphism
\begin{align}\label{adj3}
{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*(M),N)\cong {\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M, F^*(N))
\end{align}
which is functorial in $M$ and $N$.

While the isomorphisms (\ref{adj1}), (\ref{f^!}), (\ref{f^!'}) and (\ref{adj2}) are canonical, the isomorphisms (\ref{phi}), (\ref{f^*}) and (\ref{adj3}) depend on a choice of $\phi$. Every $R_t$-module isomorphism $\phi':R_t\to H$ is obtained from a fixed $\phi$ by multiplication by an invertible element of $R_t$, i.e. $\phi'=c\cdot \phi$ where $c\in R_t$ is invertible. Therefore the isomorphisms (\ref{f^*}) and (\ref{adj3}) are defined up to multiplication by an invertible element of $R_t$.

Since the element $1\in R_t$ generates the $R_s$-submodule $F(R_s)$ of $R_t$ and does not belong to $\mathfrak mR_t$ for any maximal ideal $\mathfrak m$ of $R_s$, the $R_s$-module $R_t/F(R_s)$ is projective. Hence applying the functor Hom$_{R_s}(-,R_s)$ to the injective map $F:R_s\to R_t$ produces a surjection $H\to {\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_s, R_s).$ Composing it with the standard $R_s$-module isomorphism  ${\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_s, R_s)\stackrel{\psi\mapsto \psi(1)}{\longrightarrow}R_s$ produces an $R_s$-module surjection $H\to R_s$. Composing this latter map with the isomorphism $\phi$ from (\ref{phi}) produces an $R_s$-module surjection
\begin{align}\label{psi}
\psi:R_t\to R_s.
\end{align}
If $N$ is an $R_s$-module, applying $-\otimes_{R_s}N$ to $\psi$ produces an $R_s$-module surjection
\begin{align}\label{psiN}
\psi_N:R_t\otimes_{R_s}N\to N.
\end{align}
It is not hard to check that the isomorphism (\ref{adj3}) sends $g\in {\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M,F^*(N))$ to $\psi_N\circ g\in {\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*(M),N).$

\section{The Main Result}
For the rest of this paper $R$ is a ring of polynomials in a finite number of variables over a perfect field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$ and $F:R_s\to R_t$ is the standard Frobenius map, i.e. $F(r)=r^p$. The main result of this paper (Theorem \ref{main}) is an explicit description of the isomorphism (\ref{adj3}) in terms of polynomial generators of $R$. The recent applications \cite{WZ, YZ} crucially depend on this explicit description. We keep the notation of the preceding section.

Let $x_1,\dots, x_n$ be some polynomial generators of $R$ over the field $k$, i.e. $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. We denote the multi-index $i_1,\dots, i_n$ by $\bar i$. Since $k$ is perfect, $R_t$ is a free $R_s$-module on the $p^n$ monomials $e_{\bar i}\stackrel{\rm def}{=}x_1^{i_1}\cdots x_n^{i_n}$ where $0\leq i_j<p$ for every $j$. If $i_j<p-1$, then $x_je_{\bar i}=e_{\bar i'}$ where $\bar i'$ is the multi-index $i_1,\dots, i_{j-1},i_j+1, i_{j+1},\dots, i_n$. If $i_j=p-1$, then $x_je_{\bar i}=x_j^pe_{\bar i'}$ where $\bar i'$ is the multi-index $i_1,\dots, i_{j-1},0,i_{j+1},\dots,i_n$.

Let $\{f_{\bar i}\in H|0\leq i_j<p\  {\rm for\ every}\  j\}$ be the dual basis of $H$, i.e. $f_{\bar i}(e_{\bar {i'}})=1$ if  $\bar i=\bar {i'}$ and $f_{\bar i}(e_{\bar {i'}})=0$ otherwise. If $i_j>0$, then $x_jf_{\bar i}=f_{\bar i'}$ where $\bar i'$ is the multi-index $i_1,\dots, i_{j-1},i_j-1,i_{j+1},\dots, i_n$. If $i_j=0$, then $x_jf_{\bar i}=x_j^pf_{\bar i'}$ where $\bar i'$ is the multi-index $i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},p-1,i_{j+1},\dots,i_n$.

Denote the multi-index $p-1,\dots, p-1$ by $\overline{p-1}$ and let $\overline{p-1}-\bar i$ be the multi-index $p-1-i_1,\dots, p-1-i_n$.

\begin{proposition}\label{Fphi}$(\rm cf.$ \cite[Remark 3.11]{BSTZ}$)$
The $R_s$-linear isomorphism $\phi:R_t\to H$ that sends $e_{\bar i}$ to $f_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}$ is $R_t$-linear.
\end{proposition}

\emph{Proof.} All we have to show is that $\phi(x_je_{\bar i})=x_j\phi(e_{\bar i})$ for all indices $j$ and multi-indices $\bar i$. This is straightforward from the definition of $\phi$ and the above description of the action of $x_j$ on $e_{\bar i}$ and $f_{\bar i}$.\qed

\smallskip

Clearly, $F^*(N)=R_t\otimes_{R_s}N=\oplus_{\bar i}(e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}N)$, as $R_s$-modules. Thus every $R_s$-linear map $g:M\to F^*(N)$ has the form $g=\oplus_{\bar i}(e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\bar i})$ where $g_{\bar i}:M\to N$ are $R_s$-linear maps (i.e. $g_{\bar i}:F_*(M)\to N$ because $M$ with its $R_s$-module structure is $F_*(M)$).

\begin{lemma} \label{F^*}
An $R_s$-linear map $g:M\to F^*(N)$ as above is $R_t$-linear if and only if $g_{\bar i}(-)=g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$ for every $\bar i$ (here $e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}\in R_t$ acts on $(-)\in F_*(M)$ via the $R_t$-module structure on $F_*(M)$).
\end{lemma}

\emph{Proof.} Assume $g$ is $R_t$-linear. Then $g$ commutes with multiplication by every element of $R_t$ and in particular with multiplication by $e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}$. That is $g(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))=e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}g(-)$. Since $e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}e_{\bar i}=e_{\overline{p-1}}$, the $\overline{p-1}$-component of $e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}g(-)$ is $e_{\overline{p-1}}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\bar i}(-)$ while the $\overline{p-1}$-component of $g(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$ is $e_{\overline{p-1}}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-)).$ Since the two $\overline{p-1}$-components are equal, $g_{\bar i}(-)=g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$.

Conversely, assume $g_{\bar i}(-)=g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$ for every $\bar i$. To show that $g$ is $R_t$-linear all one has to show is that $g$ commutes with the action of every $x_j\in R_t$, i.e. the $\bar i$-components of $g(x_j(-))$ and $x_jg(-)$ are the same for all $\bar i$. If $i_j>0$, then the $\bar i$-component of $x_jg(-)$ is $e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\bar i'}(-)$ where $\bar i'$ is the index $i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},i_j-1,i_{j+1},\dots,i_n$ while the $\bar i$-component of $g(x_j(-))$ is $e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\bar i}(x_j(-))$. But the fact that $g_{\bar i}(-)=g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$ for every $\bar i$ implies $g_{\bar i'}(-)=g_{\bar i}(x_j(-))$.

If $i_j=0$, then the $\bar i$-component of $x_jg(-)$ is $e_{\bar i''}{\otimes_{R_s}}(_sx_jg_{\bar i''}(-))$ where $_sx_j$ denotes the element of $R_s$ corresponding to $x_j\in R_t$ (i.e. $F(_sx_j)=x_j^p$) and $\bar i''$ is the index $i_1,\dots, i_{j-1},p-1,i_{j+1},\dots, i_n$ while the $\bar i$-component of $g(x_j(-))$ is $g_{\bar i}(x_j(-))$. But the fact that $g_{\bar i}(-)=g_{\overline{p-1}}(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))$ for every $\bar i$ implies $_sx_jg_{\bar i''}(-)=g_{\bar i}(x_j(-))$.\qed

\smallskip

Finally we are ready for the main result of the paper which is the following explicit description of the isomorphism (\ref{adj3}) for the Frobenius map.

\begin{theorem}\label{main}
For every $R_t$-module $M$ and every $R_s$-module $N$ there is an $R_t$-linear isomorphism
\begin{alignat}{2}
{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*(M),N)&\cong& &{\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M,F^*(N))\notag\\
g_{\overline{p-1}}(-)&\leftarrow &&(g=\oplus_{\bar i}(e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}g_{\bar i}(-)))\\
g&\mapsto &&\oplus_{\bar i}(e_{\bar i}\otimes_{R_s}g(e_{\overline{p-1}-\bar i}(-))).
\end{alignat}
\end{theorem}

\emph{Proof.} As is pointed out at the end of the preceding section, the isomorphism (\ref{adj3}) sends $g\in {\rm Hom}_{R_t}(M,F^*(N))$ to $\psi_N\circ g\in {\rm Hom}_R(F_*(M),N).$ It is straightforward to check that with $\phi$ as in Proposition \ref{Fphi} the map $\psi$ of  (\ref{psi}) sends $e_{\overline{p-1}}$ to 1. This implies that $\psi_N\circ g=g_{\overline{p-1}}$ and finishes the proof that formula (11) produces the isomorphism of (\ref{adj3}) in one direction. The fact that the other direction of this isomorphism is according to formula (12) has essentially been proven in  Lemma \ref{F^*}. \qed

\section{Potential Applications}
The notion of $F$-finite modules was introduced in \cite{L}. An $F$-finite module is determined by a generating  morphism, i.e. an $R$-module homomorphism $\beta:M\to F^*(M)$ where $M$ is a finite $R$-module. For simplicity assume the $R$-module $M$ has finite length, i.e. the dimension of $M$ as a vector space over $k$, which we denote by $d$, is finite. Then the dimension of $F^*(M)$ as a vector space over $k$ equals $p^n\cdot d$. The number $p^n$ can be huge even for quite modest values of $p$ and $n$. Thus the target of  $\beta$ may be a huge-dimensional vector space even if $d, p$ and $n$ are fairly small. But the $R$-module $F_*(M)$ has dimension $d$ as a $k$-vector space, hence the map $\tilde\beta:F_*(M)\to M$ that corresponds to $\beta$ under the isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main}, is a map between two $d$-dimensional vector spaces. Huge-dimensional vector spaces do not appear! This should make the map $\tilde\beta$ easier to manage computationally than the map $\beta$. Of course the isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main} means that many properties of $\beta$ could be detected in $\tilde\beta$; for example, $\beta$ is the zero map if and only if $\tilde\beta$ is. Therein lies the potential for using Theorem \ref{main} to make computations more manageable.

The functors ${\rm Ext}^i_R(-, R)$ commute with both $F^*$ and $F_*$. More precisely, for every finitely generated $R_t$-module $M$ and every finitely generated $R_s$-module $N$  there exist functorial $R_t$-module isomorphisms $$\kappa_i:{\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(F^*(N),R_t)\cong F^*( {\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s))$$$$\lambda_i:F_*({\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M,R_t))\cong {\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(F_*(M),R_s).$$ Indeed, for $i=0, M=R_t$ and $N=R_s$ a straightforward composition of the $R_t$-module isomorphism $R_t\otimes_{R_s}R_s\stackrel{r'\otimes r\mapsto r'r^p}{\longrightarrow}R_t$ and the standard $R$-module isomorphisms ${\rm Hom}_{R}(R,R)\cong R$ for $R=R_t, R_s$ produce $\kappa_0$ while an additional $R_t$-module isomorphism ${\rm Hom}_{R_s}(R_t,R_s)=H\cong R_t$ produces $\lambda_0$. This implies that if $-$ stands for a complex of finite free $R$-modules, then ${\rm Hom}_R(-,R)$ commutes with $F^*$ and $F_*$. Taking now finite free resolutions of $M$ and $N$ in the categories of $R_t$- and $R_s$-modules respectively and considering that $F^*$ and $F_*$, being exact, commute with the operation of taking the (co)homology of complexes, we get $\kappa_i$ and $\lambda_i$ for every $i$.

It is straightforward to check that there is a commutative diagram
$$
\begin{CD}
{\rm Hom}_{R_t}(F^*(N), M)@>>> {\rm Hom}_{R_s}(N,F_*(M))\\
@VVV @VVV\\
{\rm Hom}_{R_t}({\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M,R_t),{\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(F^*(N),R_t))@.{\rm Hom}_{R_s}({\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(F_*(M), R_s),{\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s))\\
@VVV @VVV\\
{\rm Hom}_{R_t}({\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M,R_t),F^*({\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s)))@>>>{\rm Hom}_{R_s}(F_*({\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M, R_t)),{\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s))
\end{CD}
$$
where the top horizontal map is the isomorphism (\ref{adj4}), the bottom horizontal map is the isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main}, the bottom vertical maps are induced by $\kappa_i$ and $\lambda_i$ and, finally, the top vertical maps are defined by sending every $f\in {\rm Hom}(L,L')$ to the map ${\rm Ext}^i(L', R)\to {\rm Ext}^i(L,R)$ functorially induced by $f$.

In other words, if a pair of maps $F^*(N)\to M$ and $N\to F_*(M)$ correspond to each other under (\ref{adj4}), then the induced maps ${\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M,R_t)\to F^*({\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s))$ and $F_*({\rm Ext}^i_{R_t}(M, R_t)) \to {\rm Ext}^i_{R_s}(N,R_s)$ correspond to each other under isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main}.

Of course there is a similar diagram with the isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main} in the top row; we are not going to use it in the rest of the paper.

\smallskip

An important example of $F$-finite modules are local cohomology modules $H^i_I(R)$ of $R$ with support in an ideal $I\subset R$. A generating morphism of $H^i_I(R)$ is  the composition $$f:{\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R)\to {\rm Ext}^i_R(F^*(R/I), R)\stackrel{\kappa_i}{\cong}F^*({\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R))$$
where the first map is induced by the isomorphism $F^*(R/I)\stackrel{r'\otimes\bar r\mapsto r'\bar r^p}{\cong}R/I^{[p]}$ followed by the natural surjecton $R/I^{[p]}\to R/I$. The following proposition holds the potential for simplifying computations involving local cohomology modules.

\begin{proposition}
Let $I\subset R$ be an ideal and let the composition $$f:{\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R)\to {\rm Ext}^i_R(F^*(R/I), R)\stackrel{\kappa_i}{\cong}F^*({\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R))$$ be as above.The map that corresponds to $f$ under the isomorphism of Theorem \ref{main} is the composition $$g:F_*({\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R))\stackrel{\lambda_i}{\cong}{\rm Ext}^i_R(F_*(R/I), R)\to {\rm Ext}^i_R(R/I, R)$$ where the second map in the composition is nothing but the map induced on ${\rm Ext}^i_R(-,R)$ by the natural Frobenius map $R/I\stackrel{r\mapsto r^p}{\cong} F_*(R/I)$.
\end{proposition}

\emph{Proof.} This is immediate from the above commutative diagram considering that  the maps $F^*(R/I)\stackrel{r'\otimes r\mapsto r'r^p}{\longrightarrow} R/I$ and $R/I\stackrel{r\to r^p}{\rightarrow}F_*(R/I)$ correspond to each other under the isomorphism (\ref{adj4}).\qed

\smallskip

In addition to potential use in computation, the material of this section has already been used in a proof of a theoretical result \cite[Section 5]{WZ}.