A simple proof for a forbidden subposet problem (Q2290360)

Summary: The poset \(Y_{k, 2}\) consists of \(k+2\) distinct elements \(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k, y_1, y_2\), such that \(x_1 \le x_2 \le \cdots \le x_k \le y_1, y_2\). The poset \(Y^\prime_{k, 2}\) is the dual poset of \(Y_{k, 2}\). The sum of the \(k\) largest binomial coefficients of order \(n\) is denoted by \(\Sigma(n,k)\). Let \(\text{La}^{\sharp}(n,\{Y_{k, 2}, Y^\prime_{k, 2}\})\) be the size of the largest family \(\mathcal{F} \subset 2^{[n]}\) that contains neither \(Y_{k,2}\) nor \(Y^\prime_{k,2}\) as an induced subposet. \textit{A. Methuku} and \textit{C. Tompkins} [Electron. J. Comb. 22, No. 4, Research Paper P4.29, 14 p. (2015; Zbl 1329.05293)] proved that \(\text{La}^{\sharp}(n, \{Y_{2,2}, Y^\prime_{2,2}\}) = \Sigma(n,2)\) for \(n \ge 3\) and conjectured the generalization that if \(k \ge 2\) is an integer and \(n \ge k+1\), then \(\text{La}^{\sharp}(n, \{Y_{k,2}, Y^\prime_{k,2}\}) = \Sigma(n,k)\). On the other hand, it is known that \(\text{La}^{\sharp}(n, Y_{k,2})\) and \(\text{La}^{\sharp}(n, Y^\prime_{k,2})\) are both strictly greater than \(\Sigma(n,k)\). In this paper, we introduce a simple approach, motivated by discharging, to prove this conjecture.