Intersection theorems for families of matchings of complete $k$-partite $k$-graphs

Abstract: The celebrated Erdős-Ko-Rado Theorem and other intersection theorems on families of sets have previously been generalised with respect to families of permutations. We prove that many of these generalised intersection theorems for permutation families and related families naturally extend to families of matchings of complete $k$-partite $k$-graphs. Our results may be seen as surprising and strong generalisations of the Erdős-Ko-Rado Theorem, and our proofs rely merely on relatively simple inductive arguments.

\section{Introduction}
For an integer $n$, let $[n]$ denote the set $\{ 1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
The power set  of a set $X$ is denoted by $2^{X}$
and the set of subsets of $X$ of size $r$
is denoted by $\binom{X}{r}$.
A family of sets $\mathscr{F}$ is {\em intersecting}
if $A \cap B \neq \emptyset$ for all $A,B \in \mathscr{F}$ .
For a family of sets $\mathscr{G}$,
a subfamily of the form $\{ A \in \mathscr{G} \;:\; x \in A \}$
for some $x$ is called a {\em star}.
The celebrated {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem is as follows.
\begin{thm}[The {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem~\cite{MR0140419}]\label{thm: EKR}
Let $n \geq 2r$ and $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \binom{[n]}{r}$ be an intersecting family.
Then
\[
|\mathscr{F}| \leq \binom{n-1}{r-1}\,.
\]
Furthermore, for $n>2r$ equality is attained if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\binom{[n]}{r}$.
\end{thm}

The {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem has been generalised extensively and many analogous
results have been proven for structures other than sets.
One such generalisation is to the set of {\em generalised permutations} $\mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$,
defined for integers $r,n,m$ with $r \leq \min\{n, m\}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{P}_{r,n,m} = \{ \{(x_1, y_1), \ldots, (x_r, y_r)\} \;:\; & x_1,\ldots, x_r \textrm{ are distinct elements of } [n]\\
 & y_1,\ldots, y_r \textrm{ are distinct elements of } [m] \}\,.
\end{align*}
When $r=n=m$, $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ is equivalent to the family of permutations on $[n]$.

There has been extensive work on {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado}-type theorems for permutations and generalised permutations;
we here give a brief outline of some such results.
Deza and Frankl~\cite{MR0439648}
proved that a family of intersecting permutations,
i.e., an intersecting subset of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$,
has size at most $(n-1)!$.
Cameron and Ku~\cite{MR2009400} and Larose and Malvenuto~\cite{MR2061391}
independently showed that an intersecting family of permutations
has size $(n-1)!$ if and only if the family is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$.
Larose and Malvenuto (see \cite[Theorem 5.1]{MR2061391})
also proved that intersecting subfamilies of $\mathscr{P}_{r,r,n}$
have size at most $(n-1)_{r-1}$, where
for integers $a$ and $b$, $(a)_b$ denotes $\frac{a!}{(a-b)!}$.
Ku and Leader~\cite{MR2202076}
showed that $|\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n-1)_{r-1} (n-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$
for any intersecting family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,n,n}$ and characterised when
equality holds, except for certain cases.
These remaining cases were shown by Li and Wang~\cite{MR2285800}.
Borg and Meagher~\cite{MR3301134} proved that
$|\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n-1)_{r-1} (m-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$ for
intersecting subfamilies $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$ for $r < \min\{n,m\}$
and, furthermore, that equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$.

We encapsulate all of the results above in the following theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: gen perm}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$ be an intersecting family.
Then
\[
|\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n-1)_{r-1} (m-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$.
\end{thm}

In this paper, we will consider a generalisation of generalised permutations.
We first reinterpret generalised permutations in terms of hypergraphs.
A {\em hypergraph} $(V,E)$ is a pair consisting of a set~$V$
whose elements are called of {\em vertices} and a set $E\subseteq 2^V$ whose elements are called {\em edges}.
Unlike graph edges, hypergraph edges may be incident to more than two vertices.
The {\em complete $k$-partite $k$-graph} with parts $N_1,\ldots, N_k$,
denoted $\mathcal{K}_{N_1, \ldots, N_k}$,
is the hypergraph whose vertex set is the disjoint union of sets $N_1, \ldots, N_k$
respectively, and whose edge set is every $k$-set which contains exactly one vertex
in $N_i$ for all $i$.
In particular, $\mathcal{K}_{N_1}$ is the set of singletons of $N_1$
and $\mathcal{K}_{N_1,N_2}$ is the complete bipartite graph with parts $N_1$ and~$N_2$.
A matching of a hypergraph is a sub-hypergraph in which every vertex is incident to exactly one edge.
Therefore, by letting $N_1 = [n]$, $N_2 = [m]$ and identifying the
edge of $\mathcal{K}_{N_1,N_2}$ incident to $x \in N_1$ and $y \in N_2$ to the tuple $(x,y)$,
we see that $\mathscr{P}_{r,n,m}$ is the set of matchings of $\mathcal{K}_{N_1, N_2}$ with exactly $r$ edges.
We therefore generalise generalised permutations as follows.
Let $\mathcal{N}_k = (N_1, \ldots, N_k)$,
where $N_i$ is an $n_i$-set for integers $n_1, \ldots,n_k$.
Then let $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be
the set of matchings of $\mathcal{K}_{N_1, \ldots, N_k}$ with exactly $r$ edges.

The first main result of this paper is
a generalisation of Theorem~\ref{thm: gen perm} to subfamilies of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen int perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be an intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1}  \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}
In~fact, as $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_1} = \binom{N_1}{r}$,
Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen int perms} can be seen as a generalisation of the {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem for $n_1 > 2r$.
Similarly, all the results on subfamilies of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ to come
can be seen as generalisations of analogous results for families of sets and families of generalised permutations.

A family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is $t$-intersecting if for all
$A,B \in \mathscr{F}$,
$|A \cap B| \geq t$.
A {\em $t$-star} of a family~$\mathscr{G}$ is a (non-empty) family of the form
$\{A \in \mathscr{G} \;:\; c_1, \ldots, c_t \in A\}$,
for some fixed elements $c_1, \ldots, c_t$.
The generalisation of the {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem for $t$-intersecting families, below,
was shown for sufficiently large $n$ by Frankl~\cite{MR519277} and
was proven completely by Wilson~\cite{MR771733}.

\begin{thm}[Wilson~\cite{MR771733}]\label{thm:t-int EKR}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \binom{[n]}{r}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $n \geq (r-t+1)(t+1)$,
\[
|\mathscr{F}| \leq \binom{n-t}{r-t}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\binom{[n]}{r}$.
\end{thm}

Ahlswede and Khachatran~\cite{MR1429238} proved tight upper bounds on
the size of $t$-intersecting families
$\mathscr{F} \subseteq \binom{[n]}{r}$ for all values of $n < (r-t+1)(t+1)$,
though the maximum families are no longer $t$-stars;
see the Conclusion for details.
An analogous result for permutations, below, was conjectured by
Deza and Frankl~\cite{MR0439648} and
proven by Ellis, Friedgut and Pilpel~\cite{MR2784326}.

\begin{thm}[Ellis et al.~\cite{MR2784326}]\label{thm:t-int perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (n-t)! \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$.
\end{thm}

A result by Borg~\cite[Theorem 2.5]{MR2526749} implies the following analogue
of Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int perms} for subfamilies of $\mathscr{P}_{r,n_1,n_2}$.

\begin{thm}[Borg~\cite{MR2526749}]\label{thm:t-int gen perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,n_1,n_2}$ be a $t$-intersecting family with $\max\{n_1,n_2\} \geq n(r,t)$.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  (n_2-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of  $\mathscr{P}_{r,n_1,n_2}$.
\end{thm}

Brunk and Huczynska~\cite{MR2587034} independently showed a similar result
for the case when $n_1 = r$.
We will generalise Theorems~\ref{thm:t-int perms} and~\ref{thm:t-int gen perms} to
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper},
respectively.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case}
Let $n =n_1 = \cdots = n_k$ and $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (n-t)!^{k-1} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $\max\{n_1,\ldots, n_k \} \geq n(r,t)$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $ \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

Ellis~\cite{MR2881230} proposed the following alternate intersecting
condition for families of permutations.
A family of permutations $\mathscr{F} \subseteq S_n$ is {\em $t$-set-intersecting}
if, for every $\sigma,\tau \in \mathscr{F}$,
there is a $t$-set $T$ such that $\sigma(T) = \tau(T)$.
The natural analogue of a $t$-star is a {\em $t$-set-star},
defined to be $\{\sigma\in \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n} \,:\, \sigma(S)=T\}$
for some fixed $t$-sets $S,T \subseteq [n]$.
Ellis~\cite{MR2881230} also proved the analogous result to
Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int perms} for $t$-set-intersecting families, below.

\begin{thm}[Ellis~\cite{MR2881230}]\label{thm:t-set-int perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ be a $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger that $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq t!\;(n-t)! \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$.
\end{thm}

A natural generalisation of $t$-set-intersecting families to subsets of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is the following.
A family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is {\em $t$-set-intersecting} if,
for all $P,Q \in \mathscr{F}$,
there exists $t$-sets $T_1 \subseteq N_1,\ldots, T_k \subseteq N_k$ such that
$|P \cap T| = t = |Q \cap T|$ for $T = T_1 \times \cdots T_k$.
A {\em $t$-set-star} of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a family of the form
$\{P \in  \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; |P \cap C| = t \}$ for a fixed
set $C = C_1 \times \cdots \times C_k$ for which
$C_1 \subseteq N_1, \ldots, C_k\subseteq N_k$ are each $t$-sets.
We will prove the following analogous results to Theorem~\ref{thm:t-set-int perms}
for $t$-set-intersecting families $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper special case}
Let $ n =n_1 = \cdots = n_k$ and $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq t!^{k-1}(n-t)!^{k-1} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of
$\mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $r$ sufficiently larger than~$t$ and $n_1,\ldots, n_k$ sufficiently larger than $r$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (t!)^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of
$\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

Erd\H{o}s, Ko and Rado~\cite{MR0140419} also proved the following.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: EKR non-uniform}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq 2^{[n]}$ be an intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq 2^{n-1} \,.
\]
\end{thm}

Stars of $2^{[n]}$ show that the bound is best possible.
Yet, unlike the {Erd\H{o}s-Ko-Rado} Theorem,
it is difficult to characterise when equality holds.
Brouwer, Mills, Mills and Verbeek~\cite{MR3066347}
provide the number of maximum families for Theorem~\ref{thm: EKR non-uniform} for $n \leq 9$
and this is the highest value of $n$ for which this has been achieved to date.
The final main result of this paper is a result analogous to Theorem~\ref{thm: EKR non-uniform}
that is valid for any $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k} := \cup_{r \in R} \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ and $k \geq 2$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: gen int perms non-uniform}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be an intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \sum_{r \in R} \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

The paper is organised as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:definitions} presents definitions and some preliminary results.
The proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen int perms} and \ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform}
are given in Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for intersecting t=1},
and Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for t-intersecting} presents the proofs of
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper}.
Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for t-set-intersecting} contains the proofs of
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper}.
In fact, we will show stronger versions of;
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen int perms} and \ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform} in Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for intersecting t=1},
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper} in
Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for t-intersecting}, and
Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper}
in Section~\ref{sec:proof of thm for t-set-intersecting}.
We conclude the paper with a partial extension of Theorem~\ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform} to $t$-intersecting families as well as many open problems and conjectures.

\section{Definitions and preliminary results}
\label{sec:definitions}

For what follows, let $k \geq 2$,
let $r, n_1, \ldots, n_k$ be integers and $r \leq \min\{n_1,\ldots, n_k\}$,
and set $\mathcal{N}_k = (N_1,\ldots, N_k)$,
where each $N_i$ is a set of $n_i$ elements.
Let $\mathcal{K}_{N_1,\ldots, N_k}$ denote the $k$-partite $k$-graph
with parts $N_1, \ldots, N_k$, respectively, as defined in the Introduction.
Let $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be the set of matchings in $\mathcal{K}_{N_1,\ldots, N_k}$ with $r$ edges.
That is,
\[
  \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} = \{ \{(x_{i,1}, x_{i,2},\ldots, x_{i,k}) \;:\; i \in [r] \} \;:\; x_{1,j},\ldots, x_{r,j}
\textrm{ are distinct elements of } N_j \textrm{ for all }j \} \,.
\]
We will use $\mathscr{P}_{r,A, B}$ to denote
$\mathscr{P}_{r,(A, B)}$ for any sets $A$ and $B$ and
use $\mathscr{P}_{r,n_1, n_2}$ to denote $\mathscr{P}_{r,[n_1], [n_2]}$,
conforming with the Introduction.

For $P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ and distinct $i,j \in [k]$,
let
\begin{align*}
  P_{j}^{i} &= \{ (x_i,x_j)\;:\; (x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in P\}\\\text{and}\quad
  P^{i}     &= (P_1^{i}, \ldots, P_{i-1}^{i}, P_{i+1}^{i},\ldots, P_k^{i})\,.
\end{align*}
For a family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$,
let
$\mathscr{F}^{i} =\{ P^{i}\;:\; P \in \mathscr{F} \}$ and $\mathscr{F}_j^i =\{ P^{i}_j\;:\; P \in \mathscr{F} \}$.
Let
\[
  R_j(P) = \{(x_1, \ldots, x_{j-1},x_{j+1}, \ldots, x_k )\;:\;
             (x_1, \ldots, x_k)\in P \text{ for some } x_j \in N_j  \}
\]
and, for any family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$,
let
$R_j(\mathscr{F}) = \{ R_j(P)\;:\; P \in \mathscr{F} \}$.
For $j \neq i$ and $P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, let $R_{j}(P^{i})$ be the tuple $P^{i}$
with the entry $P_j^{i}$ removed.
Note that $R_j(P^{i}) = (R_j(P))^{i}$;
for simplicity, we therefore write $R_j^i(P)$ to mean either of these sets.
Similarly, let $R_j^i(\mathscr{F}) = \{ R_j^i(P) \;:\; P \in \mathscr{F}\}$
as it is the same as $(R_j(\mathscr{F}))^{i}$ and $R_j(\mathscr{F}^{i})$.
For $X \in R_{j}^i( \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k})$ let
$\mathscr{F}_{|X} =
\left\lbrace P_j^{i}  \in \mathscr{F}_j^i
\;:\; R_j^i(P) = X
\right\rbrace$.
Let $V_{i}(P)$ be the set of vertices in $N_i$ incident to an edge in $P$.
Clearly, $V_i(P_j^{i}) = V_i(P)$ for all $j \neq i$ and $P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
and so $V_i(P^{i}):= V_i(P)$ and $V_i(R_j^i(P)):= V_i(P)$ are well defined for all $j \neq i$.

We will study $t$-intersecting families by considering the following more general condition.
Matchings $P,Q \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ {\em weakly $t$-intersect}
if $|P_j^{i} \cap Q_{j}^{i}| \geq t$ for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$.
A family $\mathscr{F}$ is
{\em weakly $t$-intersecting} if $P$ and $Q$ weakly $t$-intersect for all $P,Q \in \mathscr{F}$.
In particular, a family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is weakly
$t$-intersecting if and only if $\mathscr{F}^{i}_j$ is $t$-intersecting
for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$.
A family is {\em weakly intersecting} if it is weakly 1-intersecting.
For $k = 2$, weak $t$-intersection and $t$-intersection coincide.
For $k \geq 3$, weak $t$-intersection is a non-trivial generalisation of $t$-intersection;
for instance,
the matchings
$P = \{(1,1,1),(2,2,2),(3,3,3)\}$ and
$Q = \{(1,1,4),(2,4,2),(4,3,3)\}$
weakly intersect but clearly do not intersect.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:properties}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, $X \in R_{j}^i( \mathscr{F})$ and $i \neq j$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]   if $\mathscr{F}$ is weakly $t$-intersecting,
                  then $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ and $\mathscr{F}_{|X} $ are weakly $t$-intersecting;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]  $\mathscr{F}_{|X} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,V_i(X),N_j}$;
\item[{\rm(iii)}] $|\mathscr{F}| = |\mathscr{F}^i| $;
\item[{\rm(iv)}]  $|\mathscr{F}| = \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} |\mathscr{F}_{|X}|$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $\mathscr{F}$ is weakly $t$-intersecting,
then it is clear by definition that $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ is weakly $t$-intersecting.
If $X \in R_{j}^i( \mathscr{F})$, then $\mathscr{F}_{|X} \subseteq \mathscr{F}_j^i$ and so $\mathscr{F}_{|X}$ is weakly $t$-intersecting.
This establishes (i).
Statement (ii) holds as  $V_i(P_j^{i}) = V_i(R^i_j(P)) = V_i(X)$
for any $P \in \mathscr{F}$ such that $P_j^{i} \in \mathscr{F}_{|X}$.
For $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, the function $f^i\;:\;\mathscr{F} \rightarrow \mathscr{F}^i$
defined by $f^i(P) = P^i$ is  a bijection, as $(x_1,\ldots , x_k) \in P$
if and only if $(x_i,x_j) \in P_j^i$ for all $j \neq i$.
Thus, $|\mathscr{F}| = |\mathscr{F}^i|$ and so statement (iii) is true.
Finally, it is clear that $(R_j^i(P),P_j^i) \neq (R_j^i(Q),Q_j^i)$
for any distinct $P,Q \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
Therefore,
\[
|\mathscr{F}|
= |\{(R_j^i(P),P_j^i)\;:\; P \in \mathscr{F} \}|
=\sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} |\{(X,P_j^i) \;:\; R_j^i(P) = X\}|
= \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})}|\mathscr{F}_{|X}|\,,
\]
establishing statement (iv).
\end{proof}

Recall from the Introduction that,
for $t \geq 1$,
a {\em $t$-star} of a family $\mathscr{G}$ is a non-empty family $\{ P \in \mathscr{G} \;:\;  c_1, \ldots, c_t \in P\}$
for some fixed elements $ c_1, \ldots, c_t$.
A {\em weak $t$-star}  of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
is family $\mathscr{F}$ such that $\mathscr{F}_j^i$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$
for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$. Similarly, a
{\em weak $t$-star}  of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}^i$ is a family
$\mathscr{G}$ such that $\mathscr{G}_j^i$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$
for all $j \neq i$. Clearly every weak $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$
is a $t$-star. In fact, we will show that $t$-stars are the only
weak $t$-stars  of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for all $k \geq 2$.
First we make the following observation.

\begin{rem}\label{rem: case when t-star single element}
For a $t$-star $\{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\;  c_1, \ldots, c_t \in P\}$ of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$,
the elements $c_1, \ldots, c_t$ are uniquely determined except in the following special case.
Let $N_1,\ldots, N_k$ be $(t+1)$-sets and let $r = t+1$.
Then any $t$-star $\mathscr{F}$ of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ contains a single element
$C' = \{c_1, \ldots, c_{t+1} \}$.
Thus,
$\mathscr{F} = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\;  c_{i_1}, \ldots, c_{i_t} \in P \}$
for any distinct $c_{i_1}, \ldots, c_{i_t} \in C'$.
Any $t$-intersecting family of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
is trivially a single-element family and, hence, a $t$-star
when $r = t+1$ and $N_1,\ldots, N_k$ are $(t+1)$-sets.
Similarly, $t$-intersecting families of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
are trivially single-element families when $r=t$.
Therefore, without loss of generality,
we assume that either $r > t+1$
or at least one of $N_1,\ldots, N_k$ has size greater than $t+1$.
Then any $t$-star $\mathscr{F}$ of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ has a unique $t$-set $C$,
called the {\em centre}, such that $\mathscr{F} = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\;  C \subseteq P\}$.
\end{rem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:weak star is star}
If $\mathscr{F}$ is a weak $t$-star of $ \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$,
then $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $k$.
The base case $k=2$ is clearly seen to be true, since then $\mathscr{F} =\mathscr{F}_2^1$.
So, assume that $k \geq 3$.
Let $C_j^i$ be the centre of $\mathscr{F}_j^i$ for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$,
unless $r=t+1 = |N_i|=|N_j|$ in which case,
let $C_j^i$ be any $t$-subset of the member of $\mathscr{F}_j^i$.
Let $U_i = \bigcup_{j \neq i} V_i(C_{j}^i)$ for all $i \in [k]$.
Without loss of generality, assume whenever $r=t+1 = |N_i|=|N_j|$ that $C_j^i$
is chosen to minimise the size of $U_i$.
If $|U_i| = t$ for some $i \in [k]$,
then $\mathscr{F}$ is the $t$-star with centre
\[
  C = \{ (x_1, \ldots, x_k)\;:\; x_i \in U_i \text{ and } (x_i,x_j) \in C_j^i \text{ for all } j \neq i\}\,.
\]
It is therefore sufficient to show that $|U_i| = t$ holds for some $i \in [k]$.

Clearly, $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ is a weak $t$-star of $(\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k})_j$ for all $j \in [k]$.
Therefore by induction, $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ is a $t$-star for all $j \in [k]$.
Thus, $U'_{i,j}:= \bigcup_{l \neq i,j} V_i(C_{l}^i)$ is a $t$-set for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$.
In particular, if $k \geq 4$,
then $U'_{1,2}$ and $U'_{1,3}$ are $t$-sets
and each must be a superset of the $t$-set $ V_1(C_{4}^1)$.
It follows that $U'_{1,2} = V_1(C_{4}^1) = U'_{1,3}$ and, hence,
that $U_1 = U'_{1,2} \cup U'_{1,3} = V_1(C_{4}^1)$;
that is, $|U_1|=t$, as required.

Now suppose that $k=3$ and, for the sake of contradiction,
further suppose that $|U_i|> t$ for all $i \in [k]$.
Without loss of generality, assume that $N_1$ or $N_2$ has size greater than $t+1$.
Then there are elements $x \in N_1$ and $y \in N_2$ such that
$x \notin V_1(C_2^1)$ and $y \notin V_2(C_1^2)$ but $x \in U_1$ and $y \in U_2$, i.e.,
$x \in V_1(C_{3}^1)-V_1(C_{2}^1)$ and $y \in V_2(C_{3}^2)-V_2(C_{1}^2)$.
Let $(x,w) \in C_{3}^1$ and $(y,z) \in C_{3}^2$.
If $w = z$, then $(x,y,w) \in P$ for all $P \in \mathscr{F}$ and, therefore,
every $P \in \mathscr{F}_2^1$ contains $(x,y) \notin C_2^1$,
contradicting the fact that $\mathscr{F}_2^1$
is the $t$-star of $\mathscr{F}_{r,N_1,N_2}$ with centre $C_2^1$.
If $w \neq z$, then every $P \in \mathscr{F}$ contains $(x,a,w)$ and $(b,y,z)$
for some $a \in N_1-\{x \}$ and $b \in N_2-\{y\}$.
However, this means that no member of $\mathscr{F}_2^1$ contains $(x,y)$,
contradicting the fact that $\mathscr{F}_2^1$ is the $t$-star of $\mathscr{F}_{r,N_1,N_2}$ with centre $C_2^1$.
\end{proof}

It is possible that $\mathscr{F}$ is not a $t$-star but that some $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-star.
For such cases we will use the following lemma.

\begin{lem}\label{lem: max star unique}
Suppose that $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is not a $t$-star and
that $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}^i$ for some $i \in [k]$.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| < \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,.
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
To simplify notation, suppose that $\mathscr{F}^k$ is a weak $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}^k_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
For $P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, let $A_P$ be the $r \times (k-1)$ array
with rows indexed by $V_k(P) = \{x_1,\ldots, x_r\}$
and columns indexed by $[k-1]$
whose entry in row $x_i$ and column $j$ is the element $y \in N_j$ for which $(x_i,y) \in P_j^k$.
Let $\mathscr{A}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be the set of $r \times (k-1)$ arrays $A$ indexed by some $I \in \binom{N_k}{r}$
such that column $j$ of $A$ contains $r$ distinct elements of $N_j$ for all $j \in [k-1]$.
Then, $P \rightarrow A_P$ is a bijection between $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ and $\mathscr{A}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$,
where two arrays indexed by different sets are here seen as distinct.

Let $C_j^k = \{ (x_{l,j},y_{l,j})\,:\, l \in [t]\}$ be the centre of $\mathscr{F}_j^k$ for all $j \in [k-1]$,
unless $r=t+1 = |N_j| =|N_k|$,
in which case choose $C_j^k$ to be any $t$-subset of the member of $\mathscr{F}_j^k$
which minimises the set
$U_k = \bigcup_{j=1}^{k-1} V_k(C_j^k) = \{x_{l,j}\;:\; l \in [t], j \in [k-1]\}$.
Let
$\mathscr{F}' = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; C_j^k\subseteq P_j^k \text{ for all } j \in [k-1]\}$.
As $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{F}'$ and $(\mathscr{F}')^k$
is also a weak $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}^k$
with $C_j^k$ the centre of $\mathscr{F}_j^k$ for all $j \in [k-1]$,
it suffices to show that the lemma is true for $\mathscr{F}'$.
For any $P \in \mathscr{F}'$,
the array $A_P$ has the entry $y_{l,j}$ in row $x_{l,j}$ and column $j$
for all $l \in [t]$ and $j \in [k-1]$.
In particular, for all $P \in \mathscr{F}'$,
$A_P$ is indexed by some set $I \in \binom{N_k}{r}$ such that $U_k \subseteq I$.
Conversely, any array $A \in \mathscr{A}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, indexed by $I \in \binom{N_k}{r}$ such that $U_k \subseteq I$,
for which the entry in row $x_{l,j}$ and column $j$ contains $y_{l,j}$ for all $l \in [t]$,
must be the array for some matching $P \in \mathscr{F}'$.
For a given set $I \in \binom{N_k}{r}$ such that $U_k \subseteq I$,
there are $\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}(n_j-t)_{r-t}$ arrays $A \in \mathscr{A}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ indexed by $I$
for which the entry in row $x_{l,j}$ and column $j$ contains $y_{l,j}$.
Therefore, there are $\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}(n_j-t)_{r-t}$ matchings $P \in \mathscr{F}'$
such that $V_k(P) = I$ for all $I \in \binom{N_k}{r}$ that satisfy $U_k \subseteq I$.
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn: size of semi-star}
  |\mathscr{F}'| = \binom{n_k-|U_k|}{r-|U_k|}\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}(n_j-t)_{r-t} = \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k-1}-t)_{r-t} (n_k-|U_k|)_{r-|U_k|}}{(r-|U_k|)!}\;.
\end{equation}

If $|U_k| = t$, then without loss of generality,
$x_{l,j} = x_{l,j'}$ for all $j,j' \in [k-1]$ and by observation it follows that
$\mathscr{F}'$ is the $t$-star with centre $\{ (y_{l,1}, \ldots,,y_{l,k-1},x_{l,1}) \;:\; l \in [t]\}$.
Therefore, $|U_{k}| \geq t+1$
and it follows from (\ref{eqn: size of semi-star}) that
\[
  |\mathscr{F}'| =  \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k-1}-t)_{r-t} (n_k-|U_k|)_{r-|U_k|}}{(r-|U_k|)!}< \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k}-t)_{r-t} }{(r-t)!}\;,
\]
as required.
\end{proof}

It is a simple counting exercise to show that any $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
has size $\frac{1}{(r-t)!}\prod_{i=1}^{k}(n_i-t)_{r-t}$.
So, the above lemma implies that if $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-star for some $i$
and $|\mathscr{F}|= \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$,
then $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star.

\section{Proof of Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen int perms} and~\ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform}}
\label{sec:proof of thm for intersecting t=1}

Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen int perms} follows from the stronger result below.
\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen int hyper}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly intersecting family. Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $k$.
The base case, $k=2$, is Theorem~\ref{thm: gen perm}.
So, suppose $k \geq 3$.
Let $i \in [k]$ and  $j \in [k]-\{i\}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (i) and (ii),
$\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}$ is (weakly) intersecting
and $\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,V_i(P),N_j}$ for all $P \in \mathscr{F}$.
Since $|V_i(P)| = r$,
Theorem~\ref{thm: gen perm} implies that
$\big|\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}\big| \leq
\frac{(|V_i(P)|-1)_{r-1} (n_j-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}
= (n_j-1)_{r-1}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}~(i), $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ is also weakly intersecting.
Thus by induction, $|R_j(\mathscr{F})| \leq \frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$
and so by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iii),
$|R_j^i(\mathscr{F})| \leq \frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$.
Then by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iv),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bound of thm t=1}
     |\mathscr{F}|
  =  \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} |\mathscr{F}_{|X}|
\leq \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})}(n_j-1)_{r-1}
\leq \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}\,,
\end{equation}
which establishes the bound of the theorem.

Now we characterise when equality holds in the bound of the theorem.
Clearly, if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star, then $|\mathscr{F}| = \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$.
So suppose that $|\mathscr{F}| = \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}~(iii),
equality in (\ref{eqn:bound of thm t=1}) holds only if
$|R_j(\mathscr{F})| = |R_j^i(\mathscr{F})| = \frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$ and,
by induction,
$\mathscr{F}^i_l$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i,j$.
As $j$ was arbitrary and $k \geq 3$,
$|R_{j'}(\mathscr{F})| = \frac{\prod_{l \neq j'}(n_l-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$ for any $j' \in [k]-\{i,j\}$,
and so $\mathscr{F}^i_l$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i,j'$.
In particular, $\mathscr{F}^i_j$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$.
Therefore, $\mathscr{F}^i_l$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i$,
and so $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}^i$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem: max star unique}, $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{proof}

Let $n = \min\{n_1,\ldots, n_k \}$.
Recall from the Introduction that
$\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k} = \bigcup_{r \in R} \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for each set $R \in 2^{[n]}$.
We prove Theorem~\ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform}
by proving the slightly stronger theorem below.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: gen weak int hyperperm non-uniform}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly intersecting.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \sum_{r \in R} \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The result is trivial if $R = \{ 1 \}$ or $n_1 = \cdots = n_k = 2$.
So suppose that neither $R = \{ 1 \}$ or $n_1 = \cdots = n_k = 2$ is true.
Let $\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} = \mathscr{F} \cap \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for all $r \in R$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen int hyper},
\[
       |\mathscr{F}|
    =  \sum_{r \in R} |\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}|
  \leq \sum_{r \in R} \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!} \,,
\]
and equality holds if and only if
$\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$, for all $r \in R$.
Clearly, a star of $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ meets the bound of the theorem.
If $|\mathscr{F}| = \sum_{r \in R} \frac{(n_1-1)_{r-1} \cdots (n_k-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$,
then for any  $Q \in \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k} $ such that $Q \not\in \mathscr{F}$
we must have that $\mathscr{F} \cup \{Q\}$ is not weakly intersecting.
Conversely, if $P \in \mathscr{F}$ and $Q \supseteq P$, then $Q$
weakly intersects each member of $\mathscr{F}$, since $P$ weakly intersects each member of $\mathscr{F}$.
Therefore, for any $P \in \mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ and $Q \supseteq P$,
such that $|Q| \in R$, $Q$ must be a member of  $\mathscr{F}$.
Thus, if $C$ is the centre of $\mathscr{F}_{s,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for $s = \min\{ r\in R\}$,
then $\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ contains the star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
with centre $C$ for all $r \in R$.
Hence, each family $\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ must be the star of
$\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre $C$
and so $\mathscr{F}$ is the star of $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre $C$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorems~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case} and~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper}}
\label{sec:proof of thm for t-intersecting}

We first show Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper}
by showing the slightly stronger result, below.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen weak t-int perms hyper}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $\max\{n_1,\ldots, n_k\} \geq n(r,t)$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $k$.
The base case, $k=2$, is Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int gen perms}.
So, suppose $k \geq 3$.
Choose $i \in [k]$ so that $n_i \geq n(r,t)$.
Let  $j \in [k]-\{i\}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (i) and (ii),
$\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}$ is $t$-intersecting
and $\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,V_i(P),N_j}$ for all $P \in \mathscr{F}$.
Therefore, Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int gen perms} implies that
$\big|\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}\big| \leq (n_j-1)_{r-1}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (i), $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ is also weakly $t$-intersecting.
Thus by induction, $|R_j(\mathscr{F})| \leq \frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-1)_{r-1}}{(r-1)!}$.
Then by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iii) and (iv),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bound of thm t not 1}
     |\mathscr{F}|
  =  \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} |\mathscr{F}_{|X}|
\leq \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})}(n_j-t)_{r-t}
\leq \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,,
\end{equation}
which establishes the bound of the theorem.

Now suppose that $|\mathscr{F}| = \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$.
Then equality holds in (\ref{eqn:bound of thm t not 1}) and, by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}~(iii),
$|R_j(\mathscr{F})| = |R_j^i(\mathscr{F})| = \frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$.
Thus by induction,
$\mathscr{F}_l^i$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i,j$.
As $j$ was arbitrary and $k \geq 3$,
$\mathscr{F}_l^i$ is a star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for any $j' \in [k]-\{i,j\}$ and all $l \neq i,j'$.
In particular, $\mathscr{F}_j^i$ is a also star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$.
So, $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}}^i$.
Hence by Lemma~\ref{lem: max star unique},
$\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{proof}

We end this section with a slightly stronger version of
Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-int perms hyper special case}.
\begin{thm}
Let $n = n_1 =\cdots = n_k$ and let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (n-t)!^{k-1} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of
$\mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The theorem can be shown by modifying the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen weak t-int perms hyper},
namely by using Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int perms} instead of Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int gen perms}.
The details are left to the reader.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper}}
\label{sec:proof of thm for t-set-intersecting}

Recall from the Introduction that $P,Q \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ $t$-set-intersect if $|P \cap T| = t = |Q \cap T|$
for some $T = T_1 \times \cdots \times T_k$ such that $T_1 \subseteq N_1, \ldots, T_k \subseteq N_k$
are each $t$-sets.
Also, a family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is $t$-set-intersecting if
$P$ and $Q$ $t$-set-intersect for all $P,Q \in \mathscr{F}$.
For
$C = C_1 \times \cdots  \times C_k$ such that
$C_1 \subseteq N_1, \ldots,C_k \subseteq N_k$ are each $t$-sets,
the {\em $t$-set-star} of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre $C$ is the family
$\{P \in  \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; |P \cap C| = t \}$.

\begin{rem}
The centre of a $t$-set-star $\mathscr{F}$ of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is well defined
except in the following case.
Let  $r = 2t$ and let $N_1,\ldots, N_k$ be $(2t)$-sets.
Let  $\mathscr{F} = \{P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; |P \cap C| = t \}$ as above.
Then $\mathscr{F} = \{P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; |P \cap D| = t \}$
for $D = (N_1-C_1 )\times \cdots  \times (N_k-C_k)$
and so, $\mathscr{F}$ can be considered to have centre $C$ or $D$.
As we are only concerned with $t$-set intersecting families $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
for $r$ sufficiently large,
the centre of any $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ will always be well defined.
\end{rem}

Families $\mathscr{G}, \mathscr{G}' \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ {\em cross $t$-set-intersect} if
$P$ and $Q$ $t$-set-intersect for all $P \in \mathscr{G}$ and $Q \in \mathscr{G}'$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem: Cross int t-set-stars}
Let $\mathscr{G}$ be a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,A,B}$ and
let $\mathscr{G}^\prime$ be a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,A',B'}$,
for $r$-sets $A,A',B$ and $B'$, with $r$ sufficiently larger than $t$.
If $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}^\prime$ do not have the same centre,
then $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}^\prime$ are not cross $t$-set-intersecting.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
First suppose that $A = A'$ and $B = B'$.
Then, without loss of generality,
we can consider distinct $t$-sets-stars $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}^\prime$ of $\mathscr{P}_{r,r,r}$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int perms}, $\mathscr{G}$ is maximal and so for any $P \in \mathscr{G}-\mathscr{G}'$,
the family $\mathscr{G}' \cup\{P\}$ is not $t$-set-intersecting.
Thus, $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}'$ are not cross $t$-set-intersecting.

Now suppose that $(A,B) \neq (A',B')$.
Let $C = C_1 \times C_2$ and $C' = C_1' \times C_2'$
be the centres of $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}'$, respectively.
As $C$ and $C'$ are distinct,
we can find bijective functions $\sigma : A' \rightarrow A$
and $\tau : B' \rightarrow B$
such that
$\sigma(x) = x$ if $x\in A \cap A'$,
$\tau(y) = y$ if $y\in B \cap B'$
and
$C'' := \{\sigma(x): \; x \in C_1'\}\times \{\tau(y) \;:\; y \in C_2'\} \neq C$.
For $P \in \mathscr{G}'$,
let $P_{\sigma,\tau} = \{(\sigma(x),\tau(y))\;:\; (x,y) \in P\}$
and let
$\mathscr{G}'' = \{ P_{\sigma,\tau} \;:\; P \in \mathscr{G}'\}$.
Clearly, $\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}'$ are cross $t$-set-intersecting only if
$\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}''$ are cross $t$-set-intersecting.
However, $\mathscr{G}''$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,A,B}$ with centre $C''$
and in particular is distinct from~$\mathscr{G}$.
Therefore, by the first part of the proof,
$\mathscr{G}$ and $\mathscr{G}'$ are not cross $t$-set-intersecting.
\end{proof}

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper}
is similar to the proofs in the previous section.
In particular, we will use induction on $k$.
As Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper} has not
been shown for $k=2$ when $r,n_1$ and $n_2$ are not all the same, we show it here.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:t-set-int gen perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,N_1,N_2}$ be a $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $r$ sufficiently larger than $t$ and $n_1,n_2$ sufficiently larger than~$r$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq t!\,\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}(n_2-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of
$\mathscr{P}_{r,N_1,N_2}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Clearly, if $P, Q \in \mathscr{F}$, then the sets $V_j(P)$ and $V_j(Q)$ are $t$-intersecting, for $j=1,2$.
Therefore,
the families $V_j(\mathscr{F})= \{V_j(P)\;:\; P \in \mathscr{F} \} \subseteq \binom{N_j}{r}$
are $t$-intersecting for $j=1,2$.
Thus by Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int EKR},
$V_1(\mathscr{F}) \leq \binom{n_1-t}{r-t}$
and $V_2(\mathscr{F}) \leq \binom{n_2-t}{r-t}$.
For $A \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$, let $\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B} = \mathscr{F} \cap \mathscr{P}_{r,A,B}$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:t-set-int perms},
$|\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}| \leq t!\,(r-t)!$ for all  $A \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$.
Therefore,
\[
       |\mathscr{F}|
    =  \sum_{\substack{A \in V_1(\mathscr{F}),\\B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})\phantom{,}}}|\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}|
  \leq \sum_{\substack{A \in V_1(\mathscr{F}),\\B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})\phantom{,}}} t!\;(r-t)!
  \leq t!\;\binom{n_1-t}{r-t}\binom{n_2-t}{r-t}(r-t)!\,,
\]
establishing the bound.

Clearly a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_1,N_2}$ attains the bound of the theorem.
If equality holds in the above,
then
$|\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}| = t!\,(r-t)!$ for all $A \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$
and, hence, Theorem~\ref{thm:t-set-int perms} implies that
$\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,A,B}$ for all $A \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$.
For $A,A' \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B,B' \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$,
the families $\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}$ and $\mathscr{F}_{r,A',B'}$ are cross $t$-set-intersecting,
as $\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}$ and $\mathscr{F}_{r,A',B'}$ are each subfamilies of $\mathscr{F}$.
Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{lem: Cross int t-set-stars},
$\mathscr{F}_{r,A,B}$ and $\mathscr{F}_{r,A',B'}$ must have the same centre, say $C$,
for all $A,A' \in V_1(\mathscr{F})$ and $B, B' \in V_2(\mathscr{F})$.
Hence, $\mathscr{F}$ is the $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_1,N_2}$ with centre $C$.
\end{proof}

A {\em weak $t$-set-star} of $\mathscr{P}^i_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a family $\mathscr{F}^i$
such that $\mathscr{F}^i_j$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$ for all $j \neq i$.
A {\em weak $t$-set-star} of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$
is a family $\mathscr{F}$ such that $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-set-star for all $i$.
We will need the following analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem: max star unique} for $t$-set-stars.

\begin{lem}\label{lem: max t-set-star unique}
Suppose that $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is not a $t$-set-star and that
$\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}^i_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for some $i \in [k]$.
Then, for $r$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| < (t!)^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,.
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
To simplify notation, assume that $\mathscr{F}^k$ is a weak $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}^k_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
Let $A^k_j \times B_{j}^k \subseteq N_k \times N_j$ be the centre of $\mathscr{F}_{j}^k$ for all $j \in [k-1]$,
and let
\[
  \mathscr{F}' = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}\;:\; |P^k_j \cap (A_j^k \times B_j^k) | =t \text{ for all } j \in [k-1]\}\,.
\]
Then $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{F}'$ and so it suffices to show the lemma
for $\mathscr{F}'$.
Let $\mathcal{B}(A^k_j,B_{j}^k)$ be the set of bijective functions from $A^k_j$ to $B^k_j$
and let $\mathcal{B}_k = \prod_{j = 1}^{k-1} \mathcal{B}(A^k_j,B_{j}^k)$.
For $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{k}$,
let
$\sigma = (\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_{k-1})$
and
\[
  \mathscr{F}'_{\sigma} = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; (a,\sigma_j(a)) \in P_j^k\text{ for all } a \in A_{j}^k \text{ for all }j \neq k\}\,.
\]
As each family $\mathscr{F}'_{\sigma}$ is of the form
\[
  \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}\;:\; C_j^k \subseteq P_j^k \text{ for all } j \in [k-1]\}
\]
for $C_j^k = \{ (a,\sigma_j(a)) \;:\; a \in A_j^k\}$,
it follows from (\ref{eqn: size of semi-star}) in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem: max star unique}
that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn: size of sigmaf}
  |\mathscr{F}'_{\sigma}| = \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k-1}-t)_{r-t} (n_k-|U_k|)_{r-|U_k|}}{(r-|U_k|)!}\,,
\end{equation}
where $U_k = \bigcup_{j=1}^{k-1} A_j^k$.
For any $a \in A_j^k$ and $P \in \mathscr{F}'$,
$(a,b) \in P_j^k$ for exactly one $b \in B_j^k$, by definition of $\mathscr{F}'$.
Therefore, $P\in \mathscr{F}'$ is a member of exactly one $\mathscr{F}'_{\sigma}$.
Hence, it follows from (\ref{eqn: size of sigmaf}) that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn: size of semi-t-set-star}
    |\mathscr{F}'|
  = \Bigg|\bigcup_{\sigma\in \mathcal{B}_k}\mathscr{F}_{\sigma}\Bigg|
  = (t!)^{k-1} \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k-1}-t)_{r-t}(n_k-|U_k|)_{r-|U_k|}}{(r-|U_k|)!}\,.
\end{equation}

If $U_k$ has size $t$, i.e., $A_1^k = \cdots = A_{k-1}^k$,
then it follows that $\mathscr{F}'$ is the $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre
$B_1^{k} \times \cdots \times B_{k-1}^k \times A_1^k$.
Hence, $|U_k| \geq t+1$.
Thus,(\ref{eqn: size of semi-t-set-star}) implies that
\[
       |\mathscr{F}'|
  \leq (t!)^{k-1} \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_{k-1}-t)_{r-t}(n_k-|U_k|)_{r-|U_k|}}{(r-|U_k|)!}
    <  (t!)^{k-1} \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,.
\]
\end{proof}

It can be easily shown that the analogous statement to Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (i)
for $t$-set intersecting families, below, holds.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i')]
If $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is weakly $t$-set-intersecting,
then $R_j(\mathscr{F})$ and $\mathscr{F}_{|X} $ are weakly $t$-set-intersecting
for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$ and $X \in R_{j}^i( \mathscr{F})$.
\end{itemize}

We now prove Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper},
by proving the following slightly stronger result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen weak t-set-int perms hyper}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $r$ sufficiently larger than $t$ and $n_1, \ldots, n_k$ sufficiently
larger than $r$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (t!)^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if
$\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $k$.
The base case $k=2$ is Proposition~\ref{prop:t-set-int gen perms}.
So, suppose $k \geq 3$.
Let $i \in [k]$ and  $j \in [k]-\{i\}$.
By (i') above, $\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}$ is $t$-set-intersecting for all $P \in \mathscr{F}$.
Therefore by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (ii) and Proposition~\ref{prop:t-set-int gen perms},
$\big|\mathscr{F}_{|R_j^i(P)}\big| \leq t!\,(n_j-t)_{r-t}$ for all $P \in \mathscr{F}$.
The family $R(\mathscr{F})_j^i$ is also $t$-set-intersecting, by (i').
Hence by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iii) and induction,
it follows that
$|R_j(\mathscr{F})|= |R_j^i(\mathscr{F})| \leq (t!)^{k-2}\frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$.
Then by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iv),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:bound of thm tset}
     |\mathscr{F}|
  =  \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} |\mathscr{F}_{|X}|
\leq \sum_{X \in R_j^i(\mathscr{F})} t!\;(n_j-t)_{r-t}
\leq (t!)^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}\,,
\end{equation}
which establishes the bound of the theorem.

Clearly a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ attains the bound of the theorem.
Suppose that $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a $t$-set-intersecting family such that
$|\mathscr{F}| = (t!)^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t} \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties} (iii),
equality in (\ref{eqn:bound of thm tset}) holds only if
$|R_j(\mathscr{F})| = |R_j^i(\mathscr{F})| = (t!)^{k-2}\frac{\prod_{l \neq j}(n_l-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$ and,
by induction,
$\mathscr{F}_l^i$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i,j$.
As $j$ was arbitrary and $k \geq 3$,
$|R_{j'}(\mathscr{F})| = (t!)^{k-2} \frac{\prod_{l \neq j'}(n_l-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!}$ for any $j' \in [k]-\{i,j\}$,
and
$\mathscr{F}_l^i$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_l}$ for all $l \neq i,j'$.
In particular, $\mathscr{F}_j^i$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,N_i,N_j}$.
So, $\mathscr{F}^i$ is a weak $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}^i$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem: max t-set-star unique},
$\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{proof}

We end this section with a slight generalisation of Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen t-set-int perms hyper special case}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm: Gen weak t-set-int perms hyper special case}
Let $n = n_1 =\cdots = n_k$ and
let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq t!^{k-1}(n-t)!^{k-1}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if
$\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
One can prove the theorem by modifying the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen weak t-int perms hyper},
namely by using Theorem~\ref{thm:t-set-int perms} instead of Proposition~\ref{prop:t-set-int gen perms}.
We leave the details to the reader.
\end{proof}

\section{Concluding Remarks}

As described in the Introduction,
Ahlswede and Khachatran~\cite{MR1429238} extended Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int EKR}
to all values $n < (r-t+1)(t+1)$.
More precisely they proved the following theorem.
For $i \in [\frac{n-t}{2}]$,
let
$\mathscr{F}_i = \{ F \in \binom{[n]}{r} \;:\; |F \cap [t+2i]| \geq t+i\}$.
In the theorem, we use the convention $\frac{t-1}{s}= \infty$ when $s=0$.

\begin{thm}[Ahlswede and Khachatran~\cite{MR1429238}]
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \binom{[n]}{r}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
If \\$(r-t~+1)(2+\frac{t-1}{s+1})< n < (r-t+1)(2+\frac{t-1}{s})$ for some integer $s \geq 0$,
then
\[
|\mathscr{F}| \leq |\mathscr{F}_s|
\]
and equality holds if and only if  $\mathscr{F}$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{F}_s$.

If $n = (r-t+1)(2+\frac{t-1}{s+1})$ for some $s$, then
\[
|\mathscr{F}| \leq |\mathscr{F}_s| = |\mathscr{F}_{s+1}|
\]
and equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is isomorphic to either
$\mathscr{F}_s$ or $\mathscr{F}_{s+1}$.
\end{thm}

In particular, for $n < (r-t+1)(t+1)$, $\mathscr{F}_0$, i.e. a $t$-star, is not maximally sized.
Analogously, $t$-stars of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ cannot be maximally sized
$t$-intersecting families for all values of $n$; consider the following example.
For $i \in [\frac{n-t}{2}]$,
let
\[
  \mathscr{G}_i = \{ \sigma \in \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n} \;:\; |\text{Fix}(\sigma) \cap [t+2i]| \geq t+i\}\,,
\]
where $\text{Fix}(\sigma)$ is the set of fixed points of the permutation $\sigma$.

\begin{exa}
When $n=8$ and $t = 4$, $\mathscr{G}_1 = \big\lbrace \sigma \in \mathscr{P}_{8,8,8} \;:\; \big|\text{Fix}(\sigma)\cap [6]\big| \geq 5\big\rbrace$
and $|\mathscr{G}_1| = 13 \times 2!$, while a $2$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{8,8,8}$ has size $4!$.
In fact, for any $t \geq 4$ and $n \leq 2t$, $\mathscr{G}_1$ will be larger than a $t$-star.
\end{exa}

Ellis et al.~\cite{MR2784326} conjectured the following.

\begin{conj}[Ellis et al.~\cite{MR2784326}]\label{conj:max t int perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then
\[
 |\mathscr{F}| \leq \max_{i}{|\mathscr{G}_i|}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds only if $\mathscr{F}$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{G}_i$ for some $i$.
\end{conj}

Brunk and Huczynska~\cite{MR2587034} conjectured that
an analogous result to Conjecture~\ref{conj:max t int perms} holds for families $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,r,n}$,
where $\mathscr{H}_i$ is as defined below for $k=2$.
\begin{conj}[Brunk and Huczynska~\cite{MR2587034}]\label{conj:max t int partial perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,r,n}$ be a maximum $t$-intersecting family.
Then $\mathscr{F}$ is equivalent to $\mathscr{H}_{t+2l}$,
where $l$ is the largest integer in $[\frac{r-t}{2}]$ that satisfies
\[
       (2l+t-1)\;\sum_{i=0}^{l}\;(-1)^i\;\binom{l}{i}\;(n-l-t-i)!
  \geq l\;\sum_{i=0}^{l}\;(-1)^i\;\binom{l}{i}\;(n-l-t+1-i)! \,.
\]
\end{conj}

We generalise Conjectures~\ref{conj:max t int perms}
and~\ref{conj:max t int partial perms} as follows.
Let $n = \min\{n_1,\ldots, n_k\}$,
$\{e_1,\ldots, e_n \} \in \mathscr{P}_{n,\mathcal{N}_k}$
and $H_l = \{e_i \;:\; i \in [l]\}$
for $l = 1, \ldots n$.
Also, let $\mathscr{H}_i = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; |P \cap H_{t+2i}| \geq t+i\}$.

\begin{conj}\label{conj:t-int families hyper gen n case}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \max_{i}{|\mathscr{H}_i|}\,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds only if $\mathscr{F}$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{H}_i$ for some $i$.
\end{conj}

When $r$ is sufficiently large,
$t$-stars are the largest of the families $\mathscr{H}_i$.
So, Conjecture~\ref{conj:t-int families hyper gen n case} would imply the following conjecture.

\begin{conj}\label{conj:t-int families hyper large r case}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then, for $r$ sufficiently larger than $t$,
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq \frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{conj}

Borg~\cite{MR2526749} conjectured a result that would imply
Conjecture~\ref{conj:t-int families hyper large r case} when $k=2$,
from which, using the techniques in this paper,
the remaining cases of Conjecture~\ref{conj:t-int families hyper large r case} would follow.

Ellis~\cite{MR2881230} conjectured the following.

\begin{conj}[Ellis~\cite{MR2881230}]\label{conj: t-set-int families}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$ be a $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq t!\,(n-t)! \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set star of $\mathscr{P}_{n,n,n}$,
unless $t=2$ and $n=4$.
\end{conj}

The exception in the conjecture is necessary,
as the following example from~\cite{MR2881230} demonstrates.

\begin{exa}\label{exa:t-set int but not star}
Let $t=2$ and $n=4$.
Then the family $\mathscr{F} =\{ id,(12)(34),(13)(24),(14)(23)\}$ of permutations on $[4]$
is $2$-set intersecting and has $4$ members but is not a $2$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{4,4,4}$.
\end{exa}

\noindent
Ellis'~\cite{MR2881230} example can be extended as follows.

\begin{exa}
Let $t=2$, $k \geq 3$, $r= 4 = n_1 =\cdots =n_k$, and $N_i =[n_i]=[4]$.
Define the family
\[
  \mathscr{F} = \{ P \in \mathscr{P}_{4,\mathcal{N}_k} \;:\; P^1_j \in S \text{ for all } j \neq 1\}\,,
\]
where $S = \{ id,(12)(34),(13)(24),(14)(23)\}$.
Then $\mathscr{F}$ is the family of all $P \in \mathscr{P}_{4,\mathcal{N}_k}$
of the form $\{(x,\sigma_{2}(x),\ldots, \sigma_k(x))\;:\; x \in [4]\}$
for some $\sigma_2,\ldots, \sigma_k \in S$.
So, for any distinct $i,j \in [k]$,
$\mathscr{F}_j^i$ is the family of all permutations of the form
\[
  \{(\sigma_{i}(x), \sigma_j(x))\;:\; x \in [4] \} = \{ (x, \sigma_j\sigma_i^{-1}(x))\;:\; x \in [4] \}\,.
\]
It is easy to check that $S$ is a group.
Therefore, $\{ (x, \sigma_j\sigma_i^{-1}(x))\;:\; x \in [4] \} \in S $ for all $\sigma_i,\sigma_j \in S$.
Thus, $\mathscr{F}_j^i = S$ for all distinct $i,j \in [k]$ and, as $S$ is $2$-set-intersecting,
$\mathscr{F}$ is weakly $2$-set-intersecting.

The matching $\{(x,\ldots, x)\;:\; x \in [4]\} \in \mathscr{F}$ can $t$-set-intersect
another matching $P \in \mathscr{P}_{4,\mathcal{N}_k}$ only if $P$ contains at least two edges $(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$
such that $|\{x_1,\ldots, x_k\}| \leq 2$.
However, as the matching
\[
  \{ (1,2,3,3,\ldots, 3),(2,1,4,4,\ldots, 4),(3,4,1,1,\ldots, 1), (4,3,2,2,\ldots,2)\}
\]
lies in $\mathscr{F}$, $\mathscr{F}$ cannot be $t$-set-intersecting.
Also, $|\mathscr{F}|$ equals $|S|^{k-1}= 2^{2k-2}$, the same size as a $2$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{4,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
Hence, $t$-set stars cannot be the unique maximum weakly $t$-set-intersecting families,
but may be the maximum $t$-set-intersecting families for $k \geq 3$.
\end{exa}

We therefore conjecture as follows.
\begin{conj}\label{conj:t-set-int hyper families}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a weakly $t$-set-intersecting family.
Then
\[
  |\mathscr{F}| \leq (t)!^{k-1}\frac{(n_1-t)_{r-t}  \cdots (n_k-t)_{r-t}}{(r-t)!} \,.
\]
Furthermore, equality holds if and only if $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-set-star,
unless $t=2$ and $r=n_1= \ldots =n_k=4$.
\end{conj}

We also expect the exception to not be necessary
if we instead consider $t$-set intersecting families for $k \geq 3$.
By the arguments in the paper, the conjecture above would largely follow from the $k=2$ case,
and, in particular,
Conjecture~\ref{conj: t-set-int families}
would imply Conjecture~\ref{conj:t-set-int hyper families} when $r=n_1 = \cdots = n_k$.
We also expect that every weak $t$-set-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a
$t$-set-star, i.e., an analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:weak star is star} for $t$-set stars holds.

Katona~\cite{MR0168468} considered $t$-intersecting families $\mathscr{F} \subseteq 2^{[n]}$
and proved the following theorem.
For $l,x \in [n]$, let $\mathcal{A}_l = \{ A \in 2^{[n]} \;;\; |A| \geq l\}$
and $\mathcal{A}_{l,x}= \{ A \in 2^{[n]} \;;\; |A-\{ x \}| \geq l\}$.

\begin{thm}[Katona~\cite{MR0168468}]
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq 2^{[n]}$ be a $t$-intersecting family.
Then either
\begin{itemize}
  \item[(a)] $n+t=2l$ and
    \[
      |\mathscr{F}| \leq |\mathcal{A}_l|\,,
    \]
    with equality only if $\mathscr{F} = \mathcal{A}_l$; or
  \item[(b)]$n+t=2l+1$ and
    \[
      |\mathscr{F}| \leq |\mathcal{A}_{l,1}|\,,
    \]
    with equality only if there exists $x \in [n]$ such that $\mathscr{F} = \mathcal{A}_{l,x}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}

A special case of a conjecture by Borg~\cite{MR2526749}, given below,
would if true be an analogue of Katona's Theorem for generalised permutations.

\begin{conj}[Borg~\cite{MR2526749}]\label{conj:t-int non-uniform families gen perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{2^{[n]},n_1,n_2}$ be a maximally $t$-intersecting family.
Then $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{2^{[n]},n_1,n_2}$.
\end{conj}

Borg~\cite{MR2526749} was able to prove a weakened version of his conjecture,
a special case of which is given below.

\begin{thm}[Borg~\cite{MR2526749}]\label{thm: t-int gen perms non-uniform}
Let $R \subseteq [s]-[t-1]$ for some integers $s$ and $t$.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $s$ and $t$,
any maximally $t$-intersecting family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{R,n_1,n_2}$ is a $t$-star of
$ \mathscr{P}_{R,n_1,n_2}$.
\end{thm}

Theorem~\ref{thm: t-int gen perms non-uniform} naturally extends to the following result,
by a similar argument to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: gen int perms non-uniform}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:t-int gen perms hyper non-uniform}
Let $R \subseteq [s]-[t-1]$ for some integers $s$ and $t$.
Then, for $n$ sufficiently larger than $s$ and $t$,
any maximally weakly $t$-intersecting family $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a $t$-star of $ \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Choose $n$ sufficiently large so that
Theorem~\ref{thm: Gen weak t-int perms hyper} is applicable to
$\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}:= \mathscr{F} \cap \mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for all $r \in R$.
Then $|\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}|$ is maximal if and only if
$\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ for all $r \in R$.
If $P \in \mathscr{F}$, $Q \in \mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ and $Q \supseteq P$,
then $Q \in \mathscr{F}$ since $\mathscr{F}$ is a maximally weakly $t$-intersecting family.
Thus, if $C$ is the centre of $\mathscr{F}_{r',\mathcal{N}_k}$ for $r' = \min\{r \in R\}$,
then $\mathscr{F}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ must contain, and therefore be, the $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{r,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre~$C$.
Hence, $\mathscr{F}$ is the $t$-star of $\mathscr{P}_{R,\mathcal{N}_k}$ with centre~$C$.
\end{proof}

We expect that Theorem~\ref{thm:t-int gen perms hyper non-uniform} can be extended as follows.
\begin{conj}\label{conj:t-int non-uniform families hyper gen perms}
Let $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{2^{[n]},\mathcal{N}_k}$ be a maximally weakly $t$-intersecting family.
Then $\mathscr{F}$ is a $t$-star of $\mathscr{F} \subseteq \mathscr{P}_{2^{[n]},\mathcal{N}_k}$.
\end{conj}
\section{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Thomas Britz for helpful suggestions and comments that improved the presentation of this paper.
\bibliographystyle{plain}


Abstract: Chaotic dynamics can be effectively studied by continuation from an anti-integrable limit. Using the Henon map as an example, we obtain a simple analytical bound on the domain of existence of the horseshoe that is equivalent to the well-known bound of Devaney and Nitecki. We also reformulate the popular method for finding periodic orbits introduced by Biham and Wenzel. Near an anti-integrable limit, we show that this method is guaranteed to converge. This formulation puts the choice of symbolic dynamics, required for the algorithm, on a firm foundation.

\section{#1} \label{#2}}
\newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\Th}[1]{theorem (\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\makev}[2]{\left(\begin{array}{c} #1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right)}
\newcommand{H\'{e}non }{H\'{e}non }

\def {\mathbf{\zeta}}{{\mathbf{\zeta}}}
\def {\mathbf{q}} {{\mathbf{q}}}
\def {\mathbf{s}} {{\mathbf{s}}}
\def {\mathbf{T}} {{\mathbf{T}}}
\def {\mathbf{v}} {{\mathbf{v}}}
\def {\mathbf{x}} {{\mathbf{x}}}
\def {\mathbf{y}} {{\mathbf{y}}}
\def {\mathbf{z}} {{\mathbf{z}}}

\def {\mathbb R} {{\mathbb R}}
\def {\mathbb C} {{\mathbb C}}
\def {\mathbb Z} {{\mathbb Z}}
\def {\mathbb N} {{\mathbb N}}
\def {\mathbb Q} {{\mathbb Q}}
\def {\mathbb S} {{\mathbb S}}
\def $\Box$ \\ \\ {$\Box$ \\ \\}

\pagestyle{headings}

\begin{document}

\title{Computing periodic orbits using the anti-integrable limit}
\author{D. Sterling \& J.D. Meiss
\thanks{Useful conversations with Robert Easton, Bruce Peckham and Holger
Dullin are gratefully acknowledged. JDM was supported in part by NSF grant
number DMS-9623216.}\\
Department of Applied Mathematics\\
University of Colorado\\
Boulder, CO 80309
}
\date{February 6, 1998}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
Chaotic dynamics can be effectively studied by continuation from an
anti-integrable limit.  Using the H\'{e}non  map as an example, we obtain a
simple analytical bound on the domain of existence of the horseshoe
that is equivalent to the well-known bound of Devaney and Nitecki.  We
also reformulate the popular method for finding periodic orbits
introduced by Biham and Wenzel.  Near an anti-integrable limit, we
show that this method is guaranteed to converge.  This formulation
puts the choice of symbolic dynamics, required for the algorithm, on a
firm foundation.\\
\textbf{AMS classification scheme numbers}: 58F05, 58F03, 58C15
\end{abstract}

\Sec{Introduction}{introsec}

The anti-integrable (AI) limit of a mapping is a singular limit in which
the dynamics is not deterministic\cite{Aubry95}.  Each orbit in the AI
limit is given by a sequence of symbols, and the dynamics becomes the
unrestricted shift operator on the symbols.  It is well known that
when the AI limit is ``nondegenerate'' many of the AI states can be
continued away from the limit, becoming orbits of the original mapping
\cite{Aubry90, MacKay92}. This continuation theory, a
consequence of the implicit function theorem, is much simpler
than the corresponding continuation from an ``integrable limit'',
which often requires the machinery of KAM theory.

Biham and Wenzel \cite{Biham89} introduced a technique for finding
periodic orbits of maps, in particular maps that are obtained from a
variational principle.  They generalized the notion of ``gradient
search'' to find the minimum of the variational function by
introducing a ``pseudo-gradient'' system of differential equations.  This
is obtained by multiplying the gradient by a diagonal matrix of signs.
The basic idea is that this will allow one to find critical points
other than the minimum.  This method has become popular
\cite{Biham90,Davis91,Wenzel91,Biham92,Dey95,
DAlessandro90,Hansen92,Politi92,Hunt96,Skodje90,Fang94,Kaplan93,Nagai97}
in spite of the fact that it has no rigorous foundation.  Indeed, Grassberger et.
al \cite{Grassberger89} found examples where the method
fails to find unique orbits for certain parameter values in the H\'{e}non  map.

In this paper we use the H\'{e}non  map as an example to illustrate the
usefulness of the AI limit.  At the AI limit, the H\'{e}non  map reduces to
the full shift on two symbols, and we study orbits that continue
from these states.  We obtain an explicit bound on this continuation
which happens to correspond exactly to the bound on the existence of
the horseshoe obtained by Devaney and Nitecki \cite{Devaney79} who used a
geometrical argument.  We then reformulate the Biham and Wenzel
method and show that the pseudo-gradient system has a hyperbolic sink
at the AI limit, and that this sink persists at least for the same parameter
range for which we can continue the orbits.

\Sec{Anti-Integrable Limit}{aisec}

The anti-integrable (AI) limit can be formulated in two ways.
Consider a map, $f: M \rightarrow M$ on a $d$ dimensional manifold $M$
that depends upon some parameters.  The general idea is to rewrite the
system as an equivalent implicit relation $F: M\times M \rightarrow
{\mathbb R}^{d}$ in such a way that $F$ becomes singular when a parameter,
say $\epsilon$, is zero \cite{Aubry95}.  For example if $F(x,x') = \epsilon
G(x,x') + H(x)$, then the ``orbit'' at $\epsilon=0$ corresponds to any
sequence of zeros of $H$--the dynamics is not deterministic.  We say
that $\epsilon=0$ corresponds to the {\it anti-integrable limit} of
the map $f$.  If the derivative of $H$ is nonsingular, then a
straightforward implicit function argument can be used to show that
(at least some of) the AI orbits can be continued for $\epsilon \neq
0$ to orbits of the map $f$ \cite{Aubry91, MacKay92}.  An AI limit
with this property is called {\it nondegenerate}.

Maps that are derived from a Lagrangian variational principle often
have an AI limit.  For example, orbits of the H\'{e}non  map, written in the
form
\begin{equation}\label{henonmap}
   \makev {{x'}}{{y'}} = \makev{ {y-k+x^2} }{ {-bx}} \,,
\end{equation}
can be obtained as the critical point of an action,
\begin{equation}\label{action}
    W[{\mathbf{x}}] = \sum_{t} b^{-t} L(x_{t},x_{t+1})    \,,
\end{equation}
where we label time along the trajectory by a subscript $t$, and the
factor $b^{-t}$ allows the system to be non-area preserving.  An orbit
${\mathbf{x}} = \{\ldots x_{t},x_{t+1},\ldots\}$ is a critical point of $W$,
and $y_{t} = bL_2(x_{t-1},x_t) = -L_1(x_t,x_{t+1})$.
When the Lagrangian $L$ can be put into the form $L(x,x') = \epsilon
T(x,x') - V(x)$, then $\epsilon=0$ corresponds to an AI limit
\cite{MacKay92}.  This form is quite natural for ``mechanical
systems'' where $T$ represents kinetic and $V$ potential energy.

For example, the Lagrangian for the H\'{e}non  map is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lagrangian}
    \hat L(x,x') &=& -x x' + \frac13 x^{3} -kx  \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Critical points of the action give the
second order difference or Euler-Lagrange form of the map.
To put \eq{lagrangian} into a form appropriate for the AI limit, we
rescale, defining
\[
       z=\epsilon x \quad,\quad \epsilon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}} \,,
\]
to obtain the new Lagrangian,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scaledlag}
    L(z,z') = \epsilon^{3}\hat{L}(x,x') = -\epsilon z z' + \frac{z^3}{3} - z \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Critical points of the action correspond to sequences $z_t$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{scaledmap}
   -\epsilon (z_{t+1} +b z_{t-1}) + z_t^2 -1  = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
Of course this implicit system is easily solved for $z_{t+1}$ whenever
$\epsilon \ne 0$ to give an explicit dynamical system.  However, when
$\epsilon = 0$ \eq{scaledmap} no longer defines a map, even though it
still represents a critical point of $W$.  This is the AI limit of
the H\'{e}non  map.  At this limit, ``orbits'' correspond to any bi-infinite
sequence ${\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb S}$, where we denote the set of bi-infinite
sequences with two symbols by
\[
{\mathbb S} = \{ {\mathbf{s}}: s_t\in\{1,-1\} \,, t \in {\mathbb Z} \} \,.
\]

Each ${\mathbf{s}} \in {\mathbb S}$ continues to a unique
orbit ${\mathbf{z}}(\epsilon)$ where ${\mathbf{z}}(0) = {\mathbf{s}}$ when $\epsilon$ is small
enough \cite{Aubry95, MacKay92}.  In fact, we can obtain an explicit upper
bound on the range of $\epsilon$ for which this correspondence is
guaranteed. It will be appropriate to use the $l^{\infty}$ norm, $||{\mathbf{x}}||_{\infty}
= \sup_{t}|x_{t}|$, and define $B_{M}$ to be the closed ball of radius
$M$ around the point ${\mathbf{s}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{BMdef}
    B_{M}({\mathbf{s}}) = \{{{\mathbf{z}}}  : ||{\mathbf{z}} - {\mathbf{s}}||_{\infty} \le M \} \,.
\end{equation}
With this notation, we can prove:

\begin{theorem}
\label{existtheorem}
For every symbol sequence ${\mathbf{s}} \in {\mathbb S}$, there exists a corresponding
unique orbit, ${\mathbf{z}}(\epsilon)$, of the H\'{e}non  map \eq{scaledmap} such
that ${\mathbf{z}}(0) = {\mathbf{s}}$ providing
\begin{equation}\label{epsmax}
     |\epsilon|(1+|b|) < \gamma_{\infty} \equiv 2\sqrt{1-2/\sqrt{5}} \approx 0.649839  \,.
\end{equation}
The orbit ${\mathbf{z}}(\epsilon)$ is contained in the ball $B_{M_{\infty}}({\mathbf{s}})$ where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ballsize}
      M_{\infty} & = & 1 - \sqrt{1 -\gamma\frac{\gamma+\sqrt{\gamma^2+4}}{2}} \,,\\
       \gamma    & \equiv & |\epsilon|(1 + |b|) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}

\noindent
To prove the theorem, we will write orbits ${\mathbf{z}}(\epsilon)$ of the H\'{e}non  map as
fixed points of an operator ${\mathbf{T}}$ whose $t^{th}$ component is
\begin{equation}\label{Tdef}
  T_t({\mathbf{z}}) \equiv s_t\sqrt{1 + \epsilon(z_{t+1} + bz_{t-1})} \,,
\end{equation}
where we choose the sign of the square root using a sequence ${\mathbf{s}} \in
{\mathbb S}$.  When $\epsilon = 0$, the operator becomes ${\mathbf{T}}(z) = {\mathbf{s}}$, which
trivially has a unique fixed point corresponding to the AI state, ${\mathbf{z}}
= {\mathbf{s}}$.  We will use the contraction mapping theorem to show that for
small enough $\epsilon$ the fixed point persists.  The first step in
the proof is to show that there is a domain ${\cal C}_1$ of the parameters
$(\gamma,M)$ such that ${\mathbf{T}}$ is a contraction on $B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$; this domain
is illustrated in Fig.  \ref{contbound}.  This is improved by bounding
the domain ${\cal C}_n$ in the $(\gamma,M)$ plane where ${\mathbf{T}}^n({\mathbf{z}})$
is a contraction.  It is easy to see that
\[
 {\cal C}_n \subseteq {\cal C}_{2n} \,;
\]
thus we can improve the bound on $\gamma(\epsilon)$ by iteration of ${\mathbf{T}}$.
Figure \ref{contbound} illustrates the parameter domains that we find
for $n=1,2,30$, and $\infty$. The maximal $\gamma$ values for each of
these iterates are denoted $\gamma_{n}$ in Fig. \ref{contbound}.

\Epsfig{ContractBoundSets.eps}{ht}
{Contraction regions ${\cal C}_{n}$ for $b=1$ and $n=1,2,30,\infty$.}
{contbound}{4.5in}

To demonstrate that ${\mathbf{T}}^n$ is a contraction mapping we must show that
for $(\gamma,M) \in {\cal C}_n$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ {\mathbf{T}}^n: B_{M}({\mathbf{s}}) \rightarrow B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$
\item $ ||D{\mathbf{T}}^n({\mathbf{z}})||_\infty < 1 $ for all ${\mathbf{z}} \in B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$
\end{enumerate}
The first requirement gives the solid curve in the
figure defining a lower bound on $M$ values in ${\cal C}_n$ as well
as right boundary where the range of ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}$ is no longer real.
The dashed boundary of ${\cal C}_n$ is given by the second requirement.
The maximal value of $\gamma$ is obtained in the limit $n
\rightarrow \infty$.

We begin with a lemma to prove the first requirement.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Tboundlemma}
For any $|\gamma|< 1/\sqrt{2}$, and any $M > M_{\infty}(\gamma)$ there is an $N$
such that ${\mathbf{T}}^n: B_{M}({\mathbf{s}}) \rightarrow B_{M}({\mathbf{s}}) \, , \,\forall n>N$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
\underline{Proof:}

Let ${\mathbf{T}}$ be defined by \eq{Tdef}. For any ${\mathbf{z}} \in B_M({\mathbf{s}})$  it is
easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{tbounds}
   \alpha_{n} \le ||{\mathbf{T}}^{n}({\mathbf{z}})||_{\infty} \le \beta_{n}  \,,
\end{equation}
where the sequences $\alpha_{n}$ and $\beta_{n}$ are given by the
iterations
\begin{eqnarray*}
   \beta_{n+1}   &=& f(\beta_n) \equiv \sqrt{1 + \gamma \beta_n}  \,,\\
   \alpha_{n+1}  &=& \sqrt{1-\gamma \beta_{n+1}}  \,,
\end{eqnarray*}
with the initial conditions  $\beta_0=1+M$ and $\alpha_{0}=1-M$.
The map $f(\beta)$ has a single attracting fixed point
\[
     \beta_\infty = \frac{\gamma + \sqrt{\gamma^2 + 4}}{2}  \,.
\]

Each of the $\alpha_{n}$ must be real, so we must have $1-\gamma
\beta_{n} \ge0$.  This requirement gives a right boundary to the region
in the $(\gamma,M)$ plane where ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}$ exists.  As $n \rightarrow
\infty$ these boundaries approach the vertical line defined by
\begin{equation} \label{realbound}
      1 - \gamma \beta_\infty = 0 \Rightarrow \gamma = 1/\sqrt{2}  \,,
\end{equation}
which gives one of the bounds in the lemma.

Finally, \eq{tbounds} implies that
\[
      ||{\mathbf{T}}^n - {\mathbf{s}}||_\infty \le \max{(|\alpha_n-1|,|\beta_n-1|)} = 1-\alpha_n  \,.
\]
Thus the requirement that ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}$ maps $B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$ into itself gives the
implicit relation $1 - \alpha_n \le M$. As $n$ approaches infinity,
these domains approach the region
\[
M \ge M_{\infty}(\gamma) = 1 - \alpha_\infty \,.
\]
For each $\gamma$ the sequence $M_{n}$ for which $1-\alpha_n-M_{n}
= 0$ converges monotonically to $M_{\infty}$ from above; therefore
for any $M > M_{\infty}(\gamma)$, there is an $N$ such that
${\mathbf{T}}^n:B_M({\mathbf{s}}) \rightarrow B_M({\mathbf{s}}) \, , \, \forall n>N$.
$\Box$ \\ \\

\noindent
\underline{Proof of \Th{existtheorem}}
Let $B_M({\mathbf{s}})$ be defined by \eq{BMdef} and ${\mathbf{T}}$ by \eq{Tdef}.  The map
${\mathbf{T}}^n$ is a contraction if $||D{\mathbf{T}}^n(z)||_\infty < 1$ for all ${\mathbf{z}}
\in B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$.  Using the chain rule gives
\begin{equation} \label{chainrule}
    ||D{\mathbf{T}}^n||_\infty \le \frac{\gamma^n}{2^n\prod^n_{j=1} \alpha_j}
\end{equation}
From this and lemma \ref{Tboundlemma}, the map ${\mathbf{T}}^n$ is a contraction
in the region ${\cal C}_n$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Cndef}
   {\cal C}_n \equiv
    \{ (\gamma,M) :
         1-\alpha_n \le M  \,,\,
         \gamma \le 2 \prod_{j=1}^{n} \alpha_j^{1/n} \,,\,
         \alpha_{j} \mbox{ Real for } j \le n \}  \,.
\end{equation}
We find the boundary of ${\cal C}_\infty$ by noting that the
product in \eq{Cndef} converges to $\alpha_{\infty}$ because the
sequence $\alpha_{j}$ converges geometrically to the fixed point.
Thus there exists an $N$ such that the map ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}$ is a contraction
for all $n>N$ whenever
\begin{equation}\label{bound1}
    \gamma < 2 \alpha_{\infty} \,.
\end{equation}
Using the form for $\alpha_{\infty}$ we obtain the bound
\begin{equation}\label{gamBound}
   \gamma^{2} < 4(1-2/\sqrt{5}) \,,
\end{equation}
which directly gives \eq{epsmax}.  This bound is clearly more
restrictive than \eq{realbound} so we can conclude that for any
\[
 (\gamma, M)\in {\cal C}_\infty = \{(\gamma,M): M > M_{\infty}(\gamma), \gamma < \gamma_{\infty} \}
\]
there is an $N$ such that $\forall n>N$, the map ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}({\mathbf{z}})$ is a
contraction map whenever ${\mathbf{z}} \in B_{M}({\mathbf{s}})$ The Banach fixed point
theorem then implies that ${\mathbf{T}}^{n}$ has a unique fixed point in
$B_{M_{\infty}}({\mathbf{s}})$ for all $n > N$.  But if ${\mathbf{z}}$ is a fixed point both
of ${\mathbf{T}}^{N+1}({\mathbf{z}})$ and of ${\mathbf{T}}^{N+2}({\mathbf{z}})$ then it must be a fixed
point of ${\mathbf{T}}$.  Since this is true for an arbitrary symbol sequence,
for any $\gamma$ in the range \eq{gamBound}, there is a corresponding
unique orbit of the H\'{e}non  map.
$\Box$ \\ \\

By a completely different argument, Devaney and
Nitecki\cite{Devaney79} proved that the non-wandering set of the H\'{e}non
map is hyperbolic and conjugate to the 2-shift for exactly the same
range of $\gamma$ that we give in Theorem \ref{existtheorem}.

\Sec{The Method of Biham and Wenzel}{BW}

Biham and Wenzel \cite{Biham89, Biham90} introduced a popular
algorithm for finding periodic orbits of maps. They present the method
in four steps
\begin{enumerate}
        \item  Write the map in variational form with action $W[{\mathbf{x}}]$.
        Critical points of $W$ give the desired orbits.

        \item Use symmetries or some other technique to label the various
        critical points of $W$ symbolically with a symbol sequence of
        signs, $s_{j}$.

        \item  Choose an ``arbitrary'' initial guess for a periodic orbit,
        $x_{j}(0), j=0,1,\ldots n-1$ of period $n$.

        \item  Introduce a pseudo-gradient dynamics with a fictitious
        time $\tau$ to find an extremum of the action
        \begin{equation}\label{BWode}
           \frac{d{\mathbf{x}}}{d\tau} =  -\mbox{Diag}({\mathbf{s}}) \nabla W[{\mathbf{x}}] \,.
        \end{equation}
        For a period $n$ orbit, we set $x_{j+n}(\tau) =
        x_{j}(\tau)$, and solve only the differential equations for $x_{0},
        x_{1},\ldots x_{n-1}$.
\end{enumerate}

Note that when $\mbox{Diag}({\mathbf{s}}) = {\bf I}$ this method is a standard
gradient search for finding a local minimum of $W$, and if we set
$\mbox{Diag}({\mathbf{s}}) = -{\bf I}$, then we would simply be finding a local maximum of $W$.
More generally, the symbols are chosen in an attempt to
``identify the critical points'' of the action, but there is ``no general way
to find'' the symbolic representation \cite{Biham90}.

The hope is that for each choice of $s_{j}$ (and some range of map
parameter) the system \eq{BWode} either has a ``unique'' attracting
fixed point, or else the ``corresponding'' periodic orbit does
not exist.  This claim seems at least plausible for the H\'{e}non  map,
since it has at most $2^{n}$ fixed points of period $n$, and there are
precisely $2^{n}$ choices of periodic sequences ${\mathbf{s}}$.  However,
Grassberger et.  al \cite{Grassberger89} have found examples for the
H\'{e}non  map where the method fails to find unique orbits at certain
parameter values.  More generally, there is no guarantee
that the fixed point of \eq{BWode} corresponding to the orbit of
interest is attracting. Moreover, this system of equations certainly
can have other attractors, including chaotic ones.

A rigorous foundation for the Biham and Wenzel method can be given when the map has an AI limit.
Suppose the discrete Lagrangian has the form $L(x,x') =
\epsilon T(x,x') - V(x)$, and that the potential $V$ has a
discrete set of nondegenerate critical points $\mbox{Crit}(V) = \{c_0,c_{1},c_{2},\ldots
c_{m}, c_{m+1}\}$, where we order the points, $c_{j}< c_{j+1}$ with the
convention that $c_0 = -\infty$ and $c_{m+1}= \infty$.
When $\epsilon = 0$ \eq{BWode} decouples, and becomes simply
\[
   \frac{dx_{j}}{dt} = - s_{j}V'(x_{j}) \,.
\]
Of course the equilibria of these differential equations are precisely
the AI states, i.e., any sequence of critical points, $x_{j}=
c_{k_{j}} \,,\, k_{j} \in\{1,2,\ldots m\}, j \in {\mathbb Z}$.  Such an
equilibrium is a sink if $s_{j}= sgn(V''(c_{k_{j}}))$.  For example
when the $c_{k}$ are minima of $V$, then $s_{j}=1$ as we expect.
The basin of attraction of the sink is the box
\[
    D_{{\mathbf{s}}}(0) = \{ {\mathbf{x}}: c_{k_{j}-1} < x_{j} < c_{k_{j}+1} \}  \,.
\]
Since hyperbolic fixed points of a vector
field are preserved under a $C^{1}$ perturbation \cite{Hirsch74}, we
immediately have the theorem
\begin{theorem}\label{AIBWtheorem}
   If $L = \epsilon T(x,x') - V(x) \in C^{2}$, and the critical points
   $\{c_{k}\}$ of $V$ are nondegenerate, then there is an
   $\epsilon_{max}$ such that for all $|\epsilon| < \epsilon_{max}$ and
   all sequences of critical points $\{c_{k_{j}}, j \in {\mathbb Z}\}$, the system
   of differential equations \eq{BWode}, with $s_{j}=
   sgn(V''(c_{k_{j}}))$, has a hyperbolic sink, ${\mathbf{x}}^{*}$, that continues
   from $x_{j} = c_{k_{j}}$ at $\epsilon = 0$ .
\end{theorem}

This reformulation of the Biham-Wenzel method points out several
important things.  First, the correct choice of the signs is
determined by the signature of the potential $V$ at the appropriate
critical point.  In fact, as originally formulated, the method cannot
possibly find all orbits when $V$ has more than two critical points.
Rather, an orbit is determined first by the choice of anti-integrable
state $c_{k_{j}}$; the sequence of signs $s_{j}$ is determined
subsequently.  Finally, as we will explicitly demonstrate below, it is
sensible to use the AI state as the initial condition for the method.

For the H\'{e}non  map, we use the scaled Lagrangian to obtain the system
\begin{equation}\label{BWscaled}
           \frac{dz_{j}}{d\tau} =  s_{j} \left(
                                            \epsilon(z_{j+1} + bz_{j-1}) -  z_{j}^{2} +1
                                           \right) \,.
\end{equation}
When $\epsilon=0$, the differential equations decouple and give the
simple equations
\[
           \frac{dz_{j}}{d\tau} =  s_{j} \left( 1-z_{j}^{2} \right) \,,
\]
for which there is a unique attracting fixed point at $z_{j}=s_{j}$
with  a basin of attraction
\[
        D_{{\mathbf{s}}}(0) = \{ {\mathbf{z}}: -1 < z_{j} < \infty \} \,.
\]
We can use \Th{existtheorem} to obtain a bound on $\epsilon$ for the
persistence of the hyperbolic fixed points of \eq{BWscaled}.  We know
from this theorem that there is a fixed point ${\mathbf{z}}^{*}$ for each ${\mathbf{s}}$
when $\gamma < \gamma_{\infty}$.  The linearization of
\eq{BWscaled} around this fixed point is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{BWlinear}
           \frac{d\zeta_{i}}{d\tau} &=&  \sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} A_{ij} \zeta_{j} \,,\\ \nonumber
           A_{ij} &=& s_{i} \left[ \epsilon(\delta_{i+1,j} + b\delta_{i-1,j}) -
                                  2 z_{j}^{*}\delta_{i,j}
                          \right]        \,.
\end{eqnarray}
By the Gerschgorin circle theorem, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{k}$ of ${\bf A}$
are contained within the union of the disks centered at the diagonal
elements with radius given by the sum of the magnitudes of the
off-diagonal elements \cite{Stoer80}.  Since the row sum is bounded by $
|\epsilon|(1+|b|) = \gamma$, we obtain
\[
     \lambda_{k} \in \bigcup_{j} \{\lambda :\big|\lambda + 2|z_{j}^{*}|\big| \le  \gamma \} \,.
\]
According to \Th{existtheorem}, ${\mathbf{z}}^{*} \in B_{M_{\infty}}({\mathbf{s}})$,
where $M_\infty$ is given by \eq{ballsize}; therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda}
           Re(\lambda) \le -2(1-M_\infty)+ \gamma \,.
\end{equation}
This is negative precisely when $\gamma < \gamma_{\infty}$. Thus
we have proven

\begin{theorem}
\label{BHtheorem}
        When $|\epsilon|(1+|b|) < \gamma_{\infty}$, then the orbit of the H\'{e}non  map
        labeled by the AI symbol sequence ${\mathbf{s}}$ is a hyperbolic sink
        for the system \eq{BWscaled}.
\end{theorem}

The basin of attraction of the sink initially includes the AI state
${\mathbf{z}} = {\mathbf{s}}$. We will next show that this remains true providing
$\epsilon$ is small enough. Thus the proper initial condition to use for
the Biham-Wenzel equations is the AI state.

\begin{theorem}\label{BHbasin}
The AI sequence ${\mathbf{s}}$ is in the basin of attraction for the fixed point
${\mathbf{z}}^{*}$ of \eq{BWscaled} providing
\[
    |\epsilon|(1+|b|) < 0.555668 \,.
\]
\end{theorem}

\noindent\underline{Proof: }
Suppose ${\mathbf{z}}^*$ is an orbit of the H\'{e}non  map for some fixed $\gamma
< \gamma_\infty$.  Using \eq{BWscaled}, the deviation ${\mathbf{\zeta}} =
{\mathbf{z}}-{\mathbf{z}}^{*}$ from this orbit satisfies the system of equations
\begin{equation} \label{deltaode}
    \frac{d \zeta_{i}}{d\tau}\ = \sum_{j \in {\mathbb Z}} A_{ij}\zeta_{j} - s_{i} \zeta_{i}^{2} \,,
\end{equation}
where ${\bf A}$ is given in \eq{BWlinear}. It is easy to see that
\[
       \frac{d}{d \tau} ||{\mathbf{\zeta}}||_\infty \le(-2||{\mathbf{z}}^*||_\infty +
              \gamma + ||\zeta||_\infty)||\zeta||_\infty  \,,
\]
so $||{\mathbf{\zeta}}||_\infty$ decreases when
\[
     0 < ||{\mathbf{\zeta}}||_\infty < 2(1-M) - \gamma \,,
\]
This implies that the basin of attraction of the sink contains this ball:
\[
         D_{{\mathbf{s}}}(\gamma) \supset \{ {\mathbf{z}}: ||{\mathbf{z}}-{\mathbf{z}}^{*}|| < 2(1-M) - \gamma \}
\]
If the AI state ${\mathbf{s}}$ is to be in this basin, then we require that
${\mathbf{s}} \in D_{{\mathbf{s}}}(\gamma)$, but since we know that $||{\mathbf{z}}^{*} -
{\mathbf{s}}||_{\infty} \le M_{\infty}$, this is true when
\[
     3 M_\infty(\gamma) < 2 - \gamma \Rightarrow \gamma < 0.55566  \,.
\]
$\Box$ \\ \\

\Sec{Conclusions}{Conc}

A large class of dynamical systems can be formulated to have a
nondegenerate AI limit.  In this case a simple contraction mapping
argument can be used to show that many of the symbolic orbits at the
AI limit persist away from the limit.  We have applied these ideas to
the H\'{e}non  map to show that all possible bounded orbits exist in the
range \eq{epsmax}.  Translating this back to the original parameters
$k$ and $b$ of the map
\eq{henonmap} gives
\[
     k > \frac{5+2\sqrt{5}}{4} (1+|b|)^{2}
\]
which is exactly the same bound as that found by Devaney and Nitecki
\cite{Devaney79} using a geometrical argument for the existence of a
Smale horseshoe.  The advantage of the AI argument is that it can be
easily generalized to systems where the geometrical argument might be
difficult, such as higher dimensional maps. Moreover, the AI theory
can also be used to give bounds for the existence of orbits
corresponding to various subshifts of finite type \cite{Sterling98}.

Our main interest in the AI limit is to use it as the basis for a
numerical method to find orbits of various types.  One such method we
discussed here is the ``pseudo-gradient'' algorithm of Biham and Wenzel.
We showed that this method, which was previously only justified
heuristically, has a rigorous foundation close enough to an AI limit.
Indeed, the signs in the matrix $\mbox{Diag}({\mathbf{s}})$ are
determined by signature of the critical point at the AI limit.  We
also were able to show that the AI state can be used as an initial
condition for the method.  However, our theorem applies only for a
limited range of parameter values, and one might reasonably apply the
method over a wider range of parameters.

Some care is advisable however, since it is known that the method of
Biham and Wenzel can fail far from the AI limit \cite{Grassberger89}.
We will show in a forthcoming paper \cite{Sterling98} that in some
applications, such as that in \cite{Davis91}, the method does appear
to find all orbits.

Rather than use the Biham and Wenzel method we implement a simple
``continuation'' technique for our numerical studies
\cite{Sterling98}.  This method is guaranteed to find all bounded
orbits of the map that extend to the AI limit (there could be
``bubbles'' that do not extend, but as far as we know these have never
been seen for the H\'{e}non  case).  For example, in the area preserving case ($b=1$), our
numerical results indicate that the horseshoe is destroyed at
$\epsilon = 0.41887923$, when a pair of orbits homoclinic to the
fixed point, ${\mathbf{s}} = \{\ldots,1,1,\ldots\} \equiv \{+^{\infty}\}$,
collide in a saddle-node bifurcation.  These orbits have the symbol
sequences
\[
     \{+^\infty---+^\infty\} \Longleftrightarrow \{+^\infty-+-+^\infty\} \,.
\]
This parameter value also corresponds to the accumulation point of an infinite
number of periodic saddle-node bifurcations, and hence the first value
at which the bounded orbits of the H\'{e}non  map have nonzero measure.

\bibliographystyle{unsrt}