arXiv++ Combinatorics

Let $\mathbb{F}$ be a field, and consider the hypercube $\{ 0, 1 \}^{n}$ in $\mathbb{F}^{n}$. Sziklai and Weiner (Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 2022) showed that if a polynomial $P ( X_{1}, \dots, X_{n} ) \in \mathbb{F}[ X_{1}, \dots, X_{n}]$ vanishes on every point of the hypercube $\{0,1\}^{n}$ except those with at most $r$ many ones then the degree of the polynomial will be at least $n-r$. This is a generalization of Alon and Füredi's fundamental result (European Journal of Combinatorics 1993) about polynomials vanishing on every point of the hypercube except at the origin (point with all zero coordinates). Sziklai and Weiner proved their interesting result using Möbius inversion formula and the Zeilberger method for proving binomial equalities. In this short note, we show that a stronger version of Sziklai and Weiner's result can be derived directly from Alon and Füredi's result.

Alon and Füredi (European J. Combin. 1993) gave a tight bound for the following hyperplane covering problem: find the minimum number of hyperplanes required to cover all points of the n-dimensional hypercube {0,1}^n except the origin. Their proof is among the early instances of the polynomial method, which considers a natural polynomial (a product of linear factors) associated to the hyperplane arrangement, and gives a lower bound on its degree, whilst being oblivious to the (product) structure of the polynomial. Thus, their proof gives a lower bound for a weaker polynomial covering problem, and it turns out that this bound is tight for the stronger hyperplane covering problem. In a similar vein, solutions to some other hyperplane covering problems were obtained, via solutions of corresponding weaker polynomial covering problems, in some special cases in the works of the fourth author (Electron. J. Combin. 2022), and the first three authors (Discrete Math. 2023). In this work, we build on these and solve a hyperplane covering problem for general symmetric sets of the hypercube, where we consider hyperplane covers with higher multiplicities. We see that even in this generality, it is enough to solve the corresponding polynomial covering problem. Further, this seems to be the limit of this approach as far as covering symmetry preserving subsets of the hypercube is concerned. We gather evidence for this by considering the class of blockwise symmetric sets of the hypercube (which is a strictly larger class than symmetric sets), and note that the same proof technique seems to only solve the polynomial covering problem.

Given a hypercube $\mathcal{Q}^{n} := \{0,1\}^{n}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $k \in \{0, \dots, n\}$, the $k$-th layer $\mathcal{Q}^{n}_{k}$ of $\mathcal{Q}^{n}$ denotes the set of all points in $\mathcal{Q}^{n}$ whose coordinates contain exactly $k$ many ones. For a fixed $t \in \mathbb{N}$ and $k \in \{0, \dots, n\}$, let $P \in \mathbb{R}\left[x_{1}, \dots, x_{n}\right]$ be a polynomial that has zeroes of multiplicity at least $t$ at all points of $\mathcal{Q}^{n} \setminus \mathcal{Q}^{n}_{k}$, and $P$ has zeros of multiplicity exactly $t-1$ at all points of $\mathcal{Q}^{n}_{k}$. In this short note, we show that $$deg(P) \geq \max\left\{ k, n-k\right\}+2t-2.$$Matching the above lower bound we give an explicit construction of a family of hyperplanes $H_{1}, \dots, H_{m}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, where $m = \max\left\{ k, n-k\right\}+2t-2$, such that every point of $\mathcal{Q}^{n}_{k}$ will be covered exactly $t-1$ times, and every other point of $\mathcal{Q}^{n}$ will be covered at least $t$ times. Note that putting $k = 0$ and $t=1$, we recover the much celebrated covering result of Alon and Füredi (European Journal of Combinatorics, 1993). Using the above family of hyperplanes we disprove a conjecture of Venkitesh (The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 2022) on exactly covering symmetric subsets of hypercube $\mathcal{Q}^{n}$ with hyperplanes. To prove the above results we have introduced a new measure of complexity of a subset of the hypercube called index complexity which we believe will be of independent interest. We also study a new interesting variant of the restricted sumset problem motivated by the ideas behind the proof of the above result.