<html><head><meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark"></head><body><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">\documentclass[12pt,reqno]{article}

\usepackage[usenames]{color}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amscd}

\usepackage[colorlinks=true,
linkcolor=webgreen,
filecolor=webbrown,
citecolor=webgreen]{hyperref}

\definecolor{webgreen}{rgb}{0,.5,0}
\definecolor{webbrown}{rgb}{.6,0,0}

\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{float}

\usepackage{psfig}
\usepackage{graphics,amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{epsf}

\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{.1in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{.1in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{8.9in}

\newcommand{\seqnum}[1]{\href{http://oeis.org/#1}{\underline{#1}}}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=4in
\leavevmode\epsffile{logo129.eps}
\end{center}

\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\begin{center}
\vskip 1cm{\LARGE\bf{An Inequality for Macaulay Functions}}
\vskip 1cm \large

Bernardo M.~\'Abrego and Silvia Fern\'andez-Merchant \\
Department of Mathematics\\
California State University, Northridge\\
18111 Nordhoff Street \\
Northridge, CA  91330\\
USA\\
\href{mailto:bernardo.abrego@csun.edu}{\tt bernardo.abrego@csun.edu}\\
\href{mailto:silvia.fernandez@csun.edu}{\tt silvia.fernandez@csun.edu}\\
\ \\
Bernardo Llano\\
Departamento de Matem\'{a}ticas\\
Universidad Aut\'{o}noma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa \\
San Rafael Atlixco 186 \\
Colonia Vicentina, 09340, M\'{e}xico, D.F.\\
M{\'e}xico\\
\href{mailto:llano@xanum.uam.mx}{\tt llano@xanum.uam.mx}\\
\end{center}

\vskip .2 in

\begin{abstract}
Given integers $k\geq1$ and $n\geq0$, there is a unique way of
writing $n$ as
$n=\binom{n_{k}}{k}+\binom{n_{k-1}}{k-1}+\cdots+\binom{n_{1}}{1}$ so
that $0\leq n_{1}&lt;\cdots&lt;n_{k-1}&lt;n_{k}$. Using this representation,
the \emph{k$^{\text{th}}$ Macaulay function of }$n$ is
defined as $\partial^{k}( n)
=\binom{n_{k}-1}{k-1}+\binom{n_{k-1}-1}{k-2}+\cdots+\binom{n_{1}-1}
{0}.$ We show that if $a\geq0$ and $a&lt;\partial^{k+1}(n) $, then
$\partial^{k}(a)  +\partial^{k+1}( n-a) \geq
\partial^{k+1}(n)$. As a corollary, we obtain a short proof of
Macaulay's theorem. Other previously known results are obtained as
direct consequences.
\end{abstract}


\newtheorem*{thmK}{Theorem K}
\newtheorem*{thmM}{Theorem M}

\section{Introduction}

Given integers $k\geq1$ and $n\geq0$, there is a unique way of
writing $n$ as
\begin{equation}
n=\binom{n_{k}}{k}+\binom{n_{k-1}}{k-1}+\cdots+\binom{n_{2}}{2}+\binom{n_{1}}{1}
\label{binomial rep}%
\end{equation}
so that $0\leq n_{1}&lt;n_{2}&lt;\cdots&lt;n_{k-1}&lt;n_{k}$. Using this
representation, called the $k$\emph{-binomial representation of
}$n$, the \emph{k$^{\text{th}}$ Macaulay function of }$n$
is defined as
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  n\right)
=\binom{n_{k}-1}{k-1}+\binom{n_{k-1}
-1}{k-2}+\cdots+\binom{n_{2}-1}{1}+\binom{n_{1}-1}{0}\text{.}
\]
(See \cite{And, CL69, Knu05, Mac27} for details.) The main goal of
this paper is to prove the following inequality for
Macaulay functions and show some of its consequences.

\begin{theorem}
\label{main}Let $k,a,$ and $n$ be integers such that $k\geq1$ and
$n\geq a\geq0$. If $a&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}( n) $, then
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  a\right) +\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(
n-a\right) \geq\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)  .
\label{main inequality}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $n=\binom{N}{k+1}$ for some $N\geq k+1,$ then the
equality occurs only when $a=0.$
\end{theorem}

Macaulay functions and the related Kruskal--Katona functions (defined below) are relevant for their applications to
the study of antichains in multisets (see for example \cite{Knu05,
And}), posets, rings and polyhedral combinatorics (see \cite{BB97}
and the survey \cite{BL04}). In particular, they play an important
role in proving results, extensions and generalizations of classical
problems concerning the Kruskal--Katona \cite{Kru63, Kat66, Wegner},
Macaulay \cite{Mac27}, and Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado \cite{EKR61} theorems.
More recently, the authors \cite{AFL07} applied Theorem~\ref{main}
to the problem of finding the maximum number of translated copies of
a pattern that can occur among $n$ points in a $d$-dimensional
space, a typical problem related to the study of repeated patterns
in Combinatorial Geometry. For every $P\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}$, a
fixed finite point set (called a \textit{pattern}), we say that $P$
is a \emph{rational simplex} if all the points of $P$ are rationally
affinely independent. We proved \cite{AFL07} that the maximum number
of translated copies of a rational simplex $P$ with $|P|=k+1$
determined by a set of $n$ points of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is equal to
$n-\mathbf{\partial}^{k}( n)$.

We now introduce some terminology needed to state the
Kruskal--Katona and Macaulay theorems. Let $M_{k}$ and $S_{k}$
denote the set of nonincreasing, respectively decreasing, sequences
of natural integers of length $k$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
M_{k}  &amp;  =\left\{  \left(  x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k}\right)
\in\mathbb{N}
^{k}:x_{1}\geq x_{2}\geq \cdots \geq x_{k}\geq1\right\} \\
S_{k}  &amp;  =\left\{  \left(  x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k}\right)
\in\mathbb{N} ^{k}:x_{1}&gt;x_{2}&gt;\cdots&gt;x_{k} \geq 1\right\}  \text{.}
\end{align*}
If $A\subseteq M_{k}$ (or $S_{k})$, then the \emph{shadow} of $A$,
denoted by $\partial A$, consists of all nonincreasing (decreasing)
subsequences of length $k-1$ of elements of $A$
($\partial(\emptyset)=\emptyset$). That is,
\[
\partial A=\left\{  x:x\text{ is a subsequence of }y\text{ of length
}k-1\text{, for some }y\in A\right\}  .
\]
By analogy, one can think of $M_{k}$ (or $S_{k}$) as multisets (or
sets) of size $k$, with positive integers as elements. In this
context $\partial A$ consists of the subsets of multisets (or sets)
in $A$ of cardinality $k-1$.

The Kruskal--Katona function $\partial_{k}$ (defined below) is the
analogue of the Macaulay function defined before. For $n$
as in Identity (\ref{binomial rep}),
\[
\mathbf{\partial}_{k}\left(  n\right)  =\binom{n_{k}}{k-1}+\binom{n_{k-1}%
}{k-2}+\cdots+\binom{n_{2}}{1}+\binom{n_{1}}{0}\text{.}%
\]
The sets of sequences $M_{k}$ and $S_{k}$ are
\emph{lexicographically ordered}. That is, for $x$ and $y$ in
$M_{k}$ (or $S_{k}$), $x\prec y$ if for some index $i$,
$x_{i}&lt;y_{i}$, and $x_{j}=y_{j}$ whenever $j&lt;i$. There is an
important relationship between shadows of multisets and sets and the
functions $\partial^{k}$ and $\partial_{k}$. Namely, if we denote by
$FM_{k}(n)$ and $FS_{k}(n)$ the first $n$ members, in lexicographic
order, of $M_{k}$ and $S_{k}$, respectively; then
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \partial FM_{k}\left(  n\right)  \right\vert =\mathbf{\partial}%
^{k}\left(  n\right)  \text{ and }\left\vert \partial FS_{k}\left(
n\right) \right\vert =\mathbf{\partial}_{k}\left(  n\right)
..\label{shadow vs macaulay}
\end{equation}


The Kruskal--Katona and Macaulay theorems show that in fact
$\partial_{k}(n)$ and $\partial^{k}(n)$ are the best lower bounds
for the shadow of a set with $n$ elements.

\begin{thmK}
\emph{(Kruskal \cite{Kru63}--Katona \cite{Kat66})} Let $k\geq0$; for
every
$A\subseteq S_{k+1}$,%
\[
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert \geq\left\vert \partial
FS_{k+1}\left( \left\vert A\right\vert \right)  \right\vert
=\partial_{k+1}\left(  \left\vert
A\right\vert \right)  \text{.}%
\]

\end{thmK}

\begin{thmM}
\emph{(Macaulay \cite{Mac27})} Let $k\geq0$; for every $A\subseteq M_{k+1}$,%
\[
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert \geq\left\vert \partial
FM_{k+1}\left( \left\vert A\right\vert \right)  \right\vert
=\partial^{k+1}\left(  \left\vert A\right\vert \right)  \text{.}
\]

\end{thmM}

The theorems just stated correspond only to the necessity of their polyhedral versions, where $f$-vectors of complexes or multi-complexes are characterized by these inequalities.
 
We present, in Section \ref{consequences}, a short and simple proof
of Theorem M obtained as a corollary of Theorem~\ref{main}. For a
short textbook proof of Theorem K, see Frankl's proof \cite{Fra}.
For an approach similar to ours, we point out that Eckhoff and
Wegner \cite{EW}, (see also Daykin \cite{Daykin}) obtained a proof
of Theorem K as a consequence of an inequality similar to Inequality
(\ref{main inequality}). Namely, for $n\geq a\geq0$,
\begin{equation}
\max\left(  \partial_{k}(a),n-a\right)  +\partial_{k+1}\left(
n-a\right) \geq\partial_{k+1}\left(  n\right)  \text{.}
\label{kruskal ineq}
\end{equation}
The equivalent inequality to Inequality (\ref{kruskal ineq}) for the
functions $\partial^{k}$ and $\partial ^{k+1}$ is true, and it was
in fact generalized by Bj\"{o}rner and Vre\'{c}ica \cite{BB97} to a
larger number of terms (see Corollary \ref{Bjorner}). The proof of
their result depends on Macaulay's theorem. However, we are not
aware of, nor could we find, a proof of Theorem M obtained as a
consequence of this result. We show, in Section \ref{consequences},
how Bj\"{o}rner and Vre\'{c}ica's inequalities follow easily from
Theorem~\ref{main}.

Our proof of Theorem~\ref{main}, presented in Section 3, is
elementary as it only relies on properties of binomial coefficients.
Some of the ideas are similar to those used in \cite{EW} for the
proof of Inequality (\ref{kruskal ineq}).

The condition $a&lt;\partial^{k+1}(n)$ in Theorem~\ref{main} cannot be
strengthened. For instance, whenever $k\geq2$, $a=\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(n)$, and the last three coefficients of the $(k+1)$-binomial representation of $n$ are $n_{1}=1$, $n_{2}=2$, and 
$n_{3}=4$; it follows that 
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  a\right)
+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left( n-a\right)
=\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)  -1&lt;\mathbf{\partial
}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)  .
\]


Finally, it is an interesting open problem to determine the pairs
$(n,a)$ with $a&lt;\partial^{k+1}(n)$ that achieve equality in
Inequality (\ref{main inequality}). So far we were able to classify
the pairs when $n$ is of the form $\binom {N}{k+1}$. The solution to
this problem would be the first step to classify all patterns $P$
for which the maximum number of translates of $P$, among $n$ points
in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$; is equal to $n-\partial^{k}(n)$.

\section{Consequences of the theorem\label{consequences}}

We first prove Macaulay's theorem as a corollary of Theorem~\ref{main}.

\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem M]   Let $A\subseteq M_{k+1}$. We proceed by
induction on $k+\vert A \vert $. If $k=0$ or $A=\emptyset$, the
result is trivially true. Suppose $k\geq1$ and $A\neq\emptyset$. Set
$A_{11}=\{x\in M_{k}:x_{k}=1$ and $x\ast1\in A\}$, $A_{12}=\{x\in
M_{k}:x_{k}\geq2$ and $x\ast1\in A\}$, and $A_{2}=\{x\in
A:x_{k+1}\geq2\}$. Here $x\ast1$ denotes the concatenation of $x$
and $1$, that is $x\ast1$ is the $k$-tuple $x$ with an entry 1
appended in the $(k+1)^{\text{th}}$ position. Clearly,
$A=(A_{11}\ast1)\cup(A_{12}\ast1)\cup A_{2}$ and the terms in the
union are
pairwise disjoint. Moreover, we can assume that $A_{11}\cup A_{12}%
\neq\emptyset$. Otherwise, since all entries of members of $A$ are
$\geq2$, we can work with the set $A^{\prime}$ obtained by
subtracting 1 to every entry in the sequences of $A$ ($\vert
A^{\prime}\vert =\vert A\vert $ and $\vert
\partial A^{\prime}\vert =\vert
\partial A\vert $.) Let $a=\vert A_{11}\vert +\vert
A_{12}\vert $ and $b=\vert A_{2}\vert $. Note that $\vert A\vert
=a+b$ and $a\geq1$.

If $x=(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k})\in A_{11}$, then
$(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{k-1})\in\partial A_{11}$ and
$(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k-1},1)=x\in\partial A_{11}\ast1$. That is,
$A_{11}\subseteq\partial A_{11}\ast1$. We now calculate $\partial A$
in terms of $A_{11},A_{12}$, and $A_{2}$. We use the property that
$\partial(A\cup B)=\partial A\cup\partial B$.
\begin{align*}
\partial A  &amp;  =\partial A_{2}\cup A_{12}\cup A_{11}\cup\left(  \partial
A_{11}\ast1\right)  \cup\left(  \partial A_{12}\ast1\right) \\
&amp;  =\partial A_{2}\cup A_{12}\cup\left(  \partial A_{11}\ast1\right)
\cup\left(  \partial A_{12}\ast1\right) \\
&amp;  =(\partial A_{2}\cup A_{12})\cup\left(  \partial(A_{11}\cup
A_{12} )\ast1\right)  .
\end{align*}
If $x\in(\partial A_{2}\cup A_{12})$, then $x_{k}\geq2$. Thus
\[
(\partial A_{2}\cup A_{12})\cap\left(  \partial(A_{11}\cup A_{12}
)\ast1\right)  =\emptyset,
\]
and consequently
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert =\left\vert \partial A_{2}\cup A_{12}%
\right\vert +\left\vert \partial(A_{11}\cup A_{12})\right\vert
\text{.} \label{macaulay proof identity}
\end{equation}
We consider two cases. If $a\geq$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(\vert
A\vert )$, then
\[
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert =\left\vert \partial A_{2}\cup
A_{12} \right\vert +\left\vert \partial(A_{11}\cup
A_{12})\right\vert \geq\left\vert A_{12}\right\vert +\left\vert
A_{11}\right\vert =a\geq\mathbf{\partial} ^{k+1}(\left\vert
A\right\vert ).
\]
Assume $a&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(\vert A\vert )$. Since $a\geq1$
then $b&lt;\vert A\vert $ and thus, by induction and Identity
(\ref{shadow vs macaulay}),
\[
\left\vert \partial A_{2}\cup A_{12}\right\vert \geq\left\vert
\partial A_{2}\right\vert \geq\left\vert \partial F_{k+1}\left(
b\right)  \right\vert =\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(b)\text{ and}
\]
\[
\left\vert \partial(A_{11}\cup A_{12})\right\vert \geq\left\vert
\partial F_{k}\left(  a\right)  \right\vert
=\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a).
\]
Therefore, by Identity (\ref{macaulay proof identity}), Theorem
\ref{main}, and Identity (\ref{shadow vs macaulay}); it follows that
\[
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert \geq\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}%
(b)+\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)\geq\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(\left\vert
A\right\vert )=\left\vert \partial F_{k+1}\left(  \left\vert
A\right\vert \right)  \right\vert .
\]

\end{proof}

In terms of shadows of sets, and using our previous corollary,
Theorem~\ref{main} can be generalized as follows.

\begin{corollary}
Given sets $A\subseteq M_{k}$ and $B\subseteq M_{k+1}$ with $\vert
A\vert &lt;\vert \partial F_{k+1}( \vert A\vert +\vert B \vert )  \vert
$ we have
\[
\left\vert \partial A\right\vert +\left\vert \partial B\right\vert
\geq\left\vert \partial F_{k+1}\left(  \left\vert A\right\vert
+\left\vert B\right\vert \right)  \right\vert .
\]

\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
By the previous corollary and Identity (\ref{shadow vs macaulay}),
$\vert
\partial
A\vert +\vert \partial B\vert \geq$ $\mathbf{\partial} ^{k}(  \vert
A\vert )  +$ $\mathbf{\partial} ^{k+1}(  \vert B\vert ) $ and $\vert
A\vert &lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}( \vert A \vert +\vert B \vert )
$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{main}, $\mathbf{\partial
}^{k}(  \vert A\vert )  +$ $\mathbf{\partial}%
^{k+1}(  \vert B \vert )  \geq \vert
\partial F_{k+1} (  \vert A \vert + \vert
B \vert ) \vert $.
\end{proof}

The following inequality, proved by Bj\"{o}rner and Vre\'{c}ica,
follows directly from our Theorem. We recall that their proof makes
use of Macaulay's theorem. Note that $r=1$, $n_{0}=a$, and
$n_{1}=n-a$ give the equivalent inequality to Inequality
(\ref{kruskal ineq}) for the function $\partial^{k}$.

\begin{corollary}
\emph{(Lemma 3.2 \cite{BS}, also Lemma 2.1 \cite{N}).} For $k&gt;0$,
the function $\partial^{k}$ satisfies that
\begin{align*}
\partial^{k}\left(  \sum_{i=0}^{r}n_{i}\right)   &amp;  \leq\sum_{i=0}^{r}%
\max\left\{  n_{i+1},\partial^{k-i}\left(  n_{i}\right)  \right\}  ,\\
\partial^{k}\left(  1+\sum_{i=0}^{k}n_{i}\right)   &amp;  \leq1+\sum_{i=0}%
^{k-1}\max\left\{  n_{i+1},\partial^{k-i}\left(  n_{i}\right)
\right\}
\text{.}%
\end{align*}
for all nonnegative integers $n_{i}$ and $r&lt;k$. \label{Bjorner}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
By induction on $k$. If $k=1$ the inequalities are trivially true.

Let $r&lt;k+1$, $a=\sum_{i=1}^{r}n_{i}$, and $n=\sum_{i=0}^{r}n_{i}$.
If $a\geq\partial^{k+1}(n)$, then
\begin{align*}
\partial^{k+1}\left(  \sum_{i=0}^{r}n_{i}\right)   &amp;  =\partial^{k+1}\left(
n\right)  \leq a=\sum_{i=1}^{r}n_{i}\leq\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}\max\left\{
n_{i+1},\partial^{k+1-i}\left(  n_{i}\right)  \right\} \\
&amp;  \leq\sum_{i=0}^{r}\max\left\{  n_{i+1},\partial^{k+1-i}\left(
n_{i}\right)  \right\}  \text{.}
\end{align*}
If on the other hand, $a&lt;\partial^{k+1}(n)$, then by Theorem~\ref{main},
\[
\partial^{k+1}\left(  \sum_{i=0}^{r}n_{i}\right)  =\partial^{k+1}\left(
n\right)  \leq\partial^{k+1}\left(  n-a\right)  +\partial^{k}\left(
a\right)
=\partial^{k+1}\left(  n_{0}\right)  +\partial^{k}\left(  \sum_{i=0}%
^{r-1}n_{i+1}\right)  \text{;}
\]
then by induction,
\begin{align*}
\partial^{k+1}\left(  \sum_{i=0}^{r}n_{i}\right)   &amp;  \leq\partial
^{k+1}\left(  n_{0}\right)  +\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}\max\left\{  n_{i+2}%
,\partial^{k-i}\left(  n_{i+1}\right)  \right\} \\
&amp;  \leq\sum_{i=0}^{r}\max\left\{  n_{i+1},\partial^{k+1-i}\left(
n_{i}\right)  \right\}  \text{.}
\end{align*}
This proves the first inequality. The second inequality is proved
exactly the same way by letting $a=1+\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}n_{i}$ and
$n=1+\sum_{i=0}^{k+1} n_{i}$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of the theorem}

We first present a simple observation. If $n&gt;k\geq0$ then by
Pascal's identity
\begin{equation}
\binom{n}{k}=\binom{n-1}{k}+\binom{n-2}{k-1}+\cdots+\binom{n-k}{1}%
+\binom{n-k-1}{0}. \label{Pascal identity}%
\end{equation}


Let $a=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}$ be the $k$-binomial
representation of
$a$. We say that $a$ is $k$\emph{-long} if $a_{1}\geq1$, and $\emph{k}%
$\emph{-short} if $a_{1}=0$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{short}Let $a\geq0$ be an integer. If $a$ is $k$-short, then
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a+1)=$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)+1$,
otherwise $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a+1)=$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The result is clear for $a=0$. If $a\geq1$ is $k$-short, then
$a=\sum _{i=v}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}$ for some $v\geq2$ and $a_{v}\geq
v$. Thus $a+1=\sum_{i=v}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}+\binom{v-1}{v-1}$ is
the $k$-binomial representation of $a+1$ where all the zero terms
have been omitted. Then $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a+1)=$
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)+\binom{v-2}{v-2}=$
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)+1$.

Now suppose $a$ is $k$-long. There is $v\geq2$ such that
$a_{j}=a_{1}+j-1$ for
$j&lt;v$, and either $v=k+1$ or $v\leq k$ and $a_{v}&gt;a_{1}+v-1$. Then%
\[
a+1=\binom{a_{k}}{k}+\cdots+\binom{a_{v}}{v}+\binom{a_{1}+v-2}{v-1}%
+\cdots+\binom{a_{1}+1}{2}+\binom{a_{1}}{1}+\binom{a_{1}-1}{0}%
\]
and by Identity (\ref{Pascal identity}) the $k$-binomial representation of $a+1$ is%
\[
a+1=\binom{a_{k}}{k}+\cdots+\binom{a_{v}}{v}+\binom{a_{1}+v-1}{v-1}\text{.}%
\]
Then, again by Identity (\ref{Pascal identity}),%
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a+1)-\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)=\binom{a_{1}+v-2}%
{v-2}-\left(  \binom{a_{1}+v-3}{v-2}+\cdots+\binom{a_{1}}{1}+\binom{a_{1}%
-1}{0}\right)  =0\text{.}%
\]

\end{proof}

To prove the Theorem, we need to consider the \emph{extended }$k$%
\emph{-binomial representation} of a positive integer $a$, by
requiring an $a_{0}$ coefficient. That is, we write
\[
a=\binom{a_{k}^{\prime}}{k}+\binom{a_{k-1}^{\prime}}{k-1}+\cdots+\binom
{a_{2}^{\prime}}{2}+\binom{a_{1}^{\prime}}{1}+\binom{a_{0}^{\prime}}%
{0}\text{,}%
\]
with $0\leq a_{0}^{\prime}=a_{1}^{\prime}-1&lt;a_{1}^{\prime}&lt;\cdots
&lt;a_{k}^{\prime}$. The condition $a_{0}^{\prime}=a_{1}^{\prime}-1$ is
necessary to make this representation unique when it exists. Clearly
$a=0$ does not have an extended representation. In general the
following is true.

\begin{lemma}
\label{extended}Let $a=\sum_{i=v}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}\geq1$ be the
$k$-binomial representation of $a$, where the terms equal to zero
have been omitted. The extended $k$-binomial representation of $a$
exists (and it is unique), if and only if $a_{v}\geq v+1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $a_{v}\geq v+1$, then, by Identity (\ref{Pascal identity}),
\[
\binom{a_{v}}{v}=\binom{a_{v}-1}{v}+\binom{a_{v}-2}{v-1}+\cdots+\binom
{a_{v}-v-1}{0}.
\]
Thus
\[
a=\sum_{i=v+1}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}+\sum_{i=0}^{v}\binom{a_{v}-v-1+i}{i}
\]
is an extended $k$-representation of $a$. Reciprocally, if
$a=\sum_{i=0} ^{k}\binom{a_{i}^{\prime}}{i}$ is an extended
$k$-representation, then
$\binom{a_{0}^{\prime}}{0}=\binom{a_{1}^{\prime}-1}{0},$ and there
is $v\geq1$ such that $a_{j}^{\prime}=a_{1}^{\prime}+j-1$ for $0\leq
j\leq v$ with either $v=k$ or $a_{v+1}^{\prime}&gt;a_{1}^{\prime}+v$.
Then, by Identity (\ref{Pascal identity} ),
\[
a=\sum_{i=v+1}^{k}\binom{a_{j}^{\prime}}{j}+\sum_{j=0}^{v}\binom{a_{1}
^{\prime}+j-1}{j}=\sum_{i=v+1}^{k}\binom{a_{j}^{\prime}}{j}+\binom
{a_{1}^{\prime}+v}{v}\text{,}%
\]
is the $k$-representation of $a$. Thus $a_{v}=a_{1}^{\prime}+v\geq
v+1$.
\end{proof}

We can define
$\mathbf{\partial}_{e}^{k}(a)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\binom{a_{i}
^{\prime}-1}{i-1}$ for the extended $k$-representation of $a$ (if it
exists). It turns out that both definitions agree, i.e.,
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)=$ $\mathbf{\partial}_{e}^{k}(a)$. Indeed,
if $a=\sum_{i=v}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}$ with $a_{v}\geq v+1$, then by
Identity (\ref{Pascal identity}) and the last proof,
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)-\mathbf{\partial}_{e}^{k}(a)=\tbinom{a_{v}-1}%
{v-1}-\sum_{i=0}^{v}\binom{a_{v}-v-2+i}{i-1}=0.
\]


Let $n=\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}\binom{n_{i}}{i}$,
$a=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}$, and
$n-a=b=\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}\binom{b_{i}}{i}$ be binomial
representations.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma comparisons2}If $0\leq a&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(n)
$, then $a_{k}&lt;n_{k+1}\leq b_{k+1}+1.$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We prove the contrapositives. If $a_{k}\geq n_{k+1}$, then
\[
a\geq\binom{a_{k}}{k}\geq\binom{n_{k+1}}{k}=\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(
\binom{n_{k+1}+1}{k+1}\right)  \geq\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(
n\right)  ,
\]
since $\binom{n_{k+1}+1}{k+1}\geq n$ and $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}$
is a non-decreasing function by Lemma \ref{short}. Now, if
$b_{k+1}+1\leq n_{k+1}-1$, then
$b&lt;\binom{b_{k+1}+1}{k+1}\leq\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k+1}$. Thus
\[
a=n-b&gt;n-\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k+1}=\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}+\binom{n_{k}}{k}
+\binom{n_{k-1}}{k-1}+\cdots+\binom{n_{1}}{1},
\]
but
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)  =\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}+\binom{n_{k}%
-1}{k-1}+\binom{n_{k-1}-1}{k-2}+\cdots+\binom{n_{1}-1}{0},
\]
and clearly $\binom{n_{i}}{i}\geq\binom{n_{i}-1}{i-1}.$ Thus $a\geq$
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)  .$
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}
[Proof of Theorem 1]  Recall that $b=n-a$. Clearly Inequality
(\ref{main inequality}) holds if $a=0$, and the case $a=1$ is a
consequence of Lemma \ref{short}. We consider two cases.

\noindent {\bf Case 1}.
$a_{k}&lt;b_{k+1}$.

Let $a=\sum_{i=v}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}\geq2$ be the $k$-binomial
representation of $a$ without the zero terms. Assume that the pair
$(a,b)$ minimizes $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a)+$
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(b)$ with $a$ as small as possible.

\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Suppose first that $a_{v}\geq v+1$. Then, by Lemma \ref{extended},
$a$ has an extended representation, say
$a=\sum_{i=0}^{k}\binom{a_{i}^{\prime
}}{i}$. Let%
\[
\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\binom{\min(a_{i}^{\prime},b_{i})}{i}\text{ and }%
\beta=\binom{b_{k+1}}{k+1}+\sum_{i=1}^{k}\binom{\max(a_{i}^{\prime},b_{i})}%
{i}+\binom{a_{0}^{\prime}}{0}.
\]
Note that $a+b=\alpha+\beta$ and $\alpha&lt;a$. Also
\[
0\leq\min(a_{1}^{\prime},b_{1})&lt;\min(a_{2}^{\prime},b_{2})&lt;\cdots&lt;\min
(a_{k}^{\prime},b_{k})\text{ and}%
\]%
\[
0\leq
a_{0}^{\prime}&lt;\max(a_{1}^{\prime},b_{1})&lt;\cdots&lt;\max(a_{k}^{\prime
},b_{k})&lt;b_{k+1}%
\]
(since $a_{k}^{\prime}\leq a_{k}&lt;b_{k+1}$ by assumption). Therefore
the definitions we gave for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are $k$-binomial
representations (extended for $\beta$). This means that
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  \alpha\right)
+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left( \beta\right)
=\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  \alpha\right)  +\mathbf{\partial
}_{e}^{k+1}\left(  \beta\right)  =\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(
a\right) +\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  b\right)  ,
\]
a contradiction to the minimality of $a$.

\item[(ii)] Assume now that $a_{v}=v$. This means that $a-1=a-\binom{a_{v}}%
{v}=\sum_{i=v+1}^{k}\binom{a_{i}}{i}\geq1$ is the $k$-representation
of $a-1$, and thus $a-1$ is short. Then by Lemma \ref{short},
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}(a-1)+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(b+1)=\mathbf{\partial}%
^{k}(a)-1+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(b+1)\leq\mathbf{\partial}^{k}%
(a)+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(b),
\]
again a contradiction to the minimality of $a$.
\end{enumerate}

Case 1 is settled.

\noindent {\bf Case 2.}
$b_{k+1}\leq a_{k}$.

Since $a&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(n)  $ then, by Lemma \ref{lemma
comparisons2}, $a_{k}&lt;n_{k+1}\leq b_{k+1}+1$. That is,
$a_{k}=b_{k+1}=n_{k+1}-1$. We proceed by induction on $k$. If $k=1,$
then $a_{1}=b_{2}=n_{2}-1$. Thus
\[
\binom{n_{2}}{2}+\binom{n_{1}}{1}=n=a+b=\binom{n_{2}-1}{1}+\binom{n_{2}-1}%
{2}+\binom{b_{1}}{1},
\]
i.e., $b_{1}=n_{1}$. Hence,
\[
\mathbf{\partial}^{1}\left(  a\right)  +\mathbf{\partial}^{2}\left(
b\right)
=\binom{n_{2}-2}{0}+\binom{n_{2}-2}{1}+\binom{n_{1}-1}{0}=\mathbf{\partial
}^{2}\left(  n\right)  .
\]


Assume $k\geq2$ and that the result holds for $k-1$. Let $n^{\prime}%
=n-\binom{n_{k+1}}{k+1},$ $b^{\prime}=b-\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k+1},$ and
$a^{\prime}=a-\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}$. Because $a \geq \tbinom{a_k}{k}=\tbinom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}$, it follows that $a' \geq 0$. Clearly, $a^{\prime}+b^{\prime}%
=n^{\prime}$, and $a^{\prime}&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k}( n^{\prime })
$ since $a&lt;$ $\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(n) =\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}+$
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k}( n^{\prime})$. By induction on $k$ the result
holds for $a^{\prime},b^{\prime},n^{\prime}$, and thus
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  b\right)
+\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(
a\right)  -\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  n\right)   &amp;  =\binom{n_{k+1}-2}%
{k}+\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  b^{\prime}\right)  +\binom{n_{k+1}-2}%
{k-1}+\mathbf{\partial}^{k-1}\left(  a^{\prime}\right) \\
&amp;  -\binom{n_{k+1}-1}{k}-\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  n^{\prime}\right) \\
&amp;  =\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  b^{\prime}\right)
+\mathbf{\partial}^{k-1}\left(  a^{\prime}\right)
-\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left( n^{\prime
}\right)  \geq0\text{.}%
\end{align*}
Case 2 is now proved.

It is only left to be shown that if $n=\binom{N}{k+1}$ for some
$N\geq k+1$, then there is equality in Inequality (\ref{main
inequality}), i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\partial}^{k}\left(  a\right) +\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(
\binom{N}{k+1}-a\right)  =\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}\left(  \binom{N}
{k+1}\right)  , \label{equality}
\end{equation}
occurs only when $a=0$.

If $N=k+1$ (and thus $a=0)$ or $a=0,$ the equality trivially holds.
Suppose that $N\geq k+2$, $a\geq1$, and Identity (\ref{equality})
holds. Let $b=\binom{N}{k+1}-a$; as before, we consider two cases.
First suppose that $a_{k}&lt;b_{k+1}$. Assume that $a$ and $b$ are the
smallest integers such that Identity (\ref{equality}) is satisfied
with $a\geq1$. If $a=1$, then by Identity (\ref{Pascal identity}),
\[
\binom{N}{k+1}-1=\binom{N-1}{k+1}+\binom{N-2}{k}+\cdots+\binom{N-k-1}{1}
\]
is $(k+1)$-long. Thus, by Lemma \ref{short},
$\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1} (\binom{N}{k+1}-1)=\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(
\binom{N}{k+1}) &lt;1+\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(\binom{N}{k+1}-1)$, which
is a contradiction. If $a\geq2$, then we proceed as in Case 1 to get
a contradiction. Now assume that $b_{k+1}\leq a_{k}$. In this case,
$a_{k}&lt;N\leq b_{k+1}+1$ and following the proof of Case 2, we have
that $a_{k}=b_{k+1}=N-1,$ a contradiction since
$\binom{N-1}{k}=\binom{a_{k}}{k}\leq a&lt;\mathbf{\partial}^{k+1}(
\binom{N}{k+1})  =\binom{N-1}{k}$.
\end{proof}


\section{Acknowledgements}

We are grateful to Hans Fetter and A. Paulina Figueroa for their
valuable help during the preparation of this paper as well as to
Eduardo Rivera-Campo for useful comments and suggestions.



\begin{thebibliography}{99}

\bibitem {AFL07}B.~M.~\'{A}brego, S. Fern\'{a}ndez-Merchant and B. Llano, On
the maximum number of translates in a point set,  \textit{Discrete
Comput. Geom.} \textbf{43} (2010), 1--20.

\bibitem {And}I.~Anderson, \textit{Combinatorics of Finite Sets}, Dover
Publications, 2002.

\bibitem {BL04}S.~L.~Bezrukov and U.~Leck, Macaulay posets (dynamic survey),
\textit{Electron. J. of Combin.} (2005) \#DS12, 40 pp.

\bibitem {BS}A.~Bj\"{o}rner and S.~Vre\'{c}ica, On $f$-vectors and Betti
numbers of multicomplexes, \textit{Combinatorica } \textbf{17} (1997), 53--65.

\bibitem {BB97}L.~J.~Billera and A.~Bj\"{o}rner, Face numbers of polytopes and
complexes, in J.~E.~Goodman and J. O'Rourke, eds., \textit{Handbook
of Discrete and Computational Geometry}, CRC Press Ser. Discrete
Math., 1997, pp.\ 291--310.

\bibitem {CL69}G.~F.~Clements and B.~Lindstr\"{o}m, A generalization of a
combinatorial theorem of Macaulay. \textit{J. Combinatorial Theory}
\textbf{7} (1969), 230--238.

\bibitem {Daykin}D.~E.~Daykin, Antichains in the lattice of subsets of a
finite set. \textit{Nanta Math.} \textbf{8} (1975), 78--83.

\bibitem {EW}J.~Eckhoff and G.~Wegner, \"{U}ber einen Satz von
Kruskal, \textit{Periodica Math. Hung.} \textbf{6} (1975), 137--142.

\bibitem {EKR61}P. Erd\H{o}s, C. Ko, R. Rado, Intersection theorems for
systems of finite sets, \textit{Quart. J. Math. Oxford} (2)
\textbf{12} (1961), 313--320.

\bibitem {Fra}P.~Frankl, A new short proof of the Kruskal--Katona
theorem, \textit{Discrete Math.} \textbf{48} (1984), 327--329.

\bibitem {Kat66}G.~O. H. Katona, A theorem of finite sets, in \textit{Theory
of Graphs. (Proc. Colloq., Tihany, 1966)}, Academic Press, 1968,
pp.\ 187--207.

\bibitem {Knu05}D.~E.~Knuth, \textit{The Art of Computer Programming}, Vol.\ 4,
Fasc 3. Generating all combinations and partitions. Addison-Wesley,
2005.

\bibitem {Kru63}J.~B.~Kruskal, The number of simplices in a complex,
in R.~Bellman ed., \textit{Mathematical Optimization Techniques},
Univ. of California Press, 1963, pp.\ 251--278.

\bibitem {Mac27}F.~S.~Macaulay, Some properties of enumeration in theory of
modular systems. \textit{Proc. London Math. Soc.} \textbf{26}
(1927), 531--555.

\bibitem {N}E.~Nevo, A generalized Macaulay theorem and generalized face
rings. \textit{J. Combin. Theory Ser. A} \textbf{113} (2006),
1321--1331.

\bibitem {Wegner}G.~Wegner, Kruskal--Katona's theorem in generalized
complexes, in \textit{Finite and Infinite Sets, Vol. II },
North-Holland,  1984, pp.\ 821--828.

\end{thebibliography}


\bigskip
\hrule
\bigskip

\noindent 2000 {\it Mathematics Subject Classification}: Primary
05A05; Secondary 05A20.

\noindent \emph{Keywords: } Macaulay function, Macaulay's
theorem, binomial representation of a positive integer, shadow of a
set.

\bigskip
\hrule
\bigskip

\noindent (Concerned with sequences \seqnum{A123578},
\seqnum{A123579}, \seqnum{A123580}, and \seqnum{A123731} .)

\bigskip
\hrule
\bigskip

\vspace*{+.1in}
\noindent
Received December 18 2010;
revised version received July 8 2011. 
Published in {\it Journal of Integer Sequences}, September 5 2011.

\bigskip
\hrule
\bigskip

\noindent
Return to
\htmladdnormallink{Journal of Integer Sequences home page}{http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/}.
\vskip .1in


\end{document}

                                                                                

</pre></body></html>