Intersecting families and nonvanishing multivariate polynomials over finite fields

For 3-wise intersection, Theorem 3.6 covers q\geq3, and Theorem 3.8 covers q=2 and d\geq 2. The remaining case, q=2 and d=1, is described by Theorem 3.9, which also gives the 4-wise assertion.

Proposition 3.2 settles d=1. Next assume d\geq2. If q=2, the classification is Theorem 3.4. If q is odd, it is Theorem 5.6. Finally, if q\geq4 is even, Theorem 5.8 gives the star conclusion for d>n, while Theorem 5.13 gives maximum non-star families for 2\leq d\leq n.

(1) Suppose q=2. Every nonvanishing polynomial takes the value 1 at every point of \mathbb{F}_2^n, so W_{n,d} consists only of polynomials representing constant functions. Conversely, let g\in\mathcal P_{n,d} represent a constant function on \mathbb{F}_2^n. If g takes the value 1, then g\in W_{n,d} by definition. If g takes the value 0, then both 1 and 1+g are nonvanishing, and therefore g=(1+g)+1 belongs to W_{n,d}.

(2) Suppose that q\geq 4 is even and 2\leq d\leq n. Put

If f is nonvanishing and [x_I]f\neq0 for some I of size d, then setting x_j=0 for all j\notin I leaves a polynomial of degree at most d in the d variables indexed by I with nonzero x_I-coefficient, and Lemma 2.7 produces a zero of it, hence a zero of f. So every nonvanishing polynomial lies in the subspace K, whence W_{n,d}\subseteq K. Conversely, let f\in K, so that every monomial occurring in f involves at most d-1 variables. For each S\in\binom{[n]}{d-1}, the polynomials of degree at most d in the variables indexed by S form a copy of \mathcal P_{d-1,d}, which is spanned by nonvanishing polynomials by Lemma 4.5; these remain nonvanishing when regarded as polynomials in all n variables. As every monomial of f lies in W_{n,d}, we conclude that K=W_{n,d}.

(3) Suppose first that q is odd. We start with d=2. Nonzero constants are nonvanishing, and so they belong to W_{n,2}. Fix a nonsquare \eta\in\mathbb F_q. For each i and j, the three polynomials x_i^2-\eta, x_j^2-\eta, and (x_i+x_j)^2-\eta are nonvanishing; as a result, x_i^2, x_j^2, (x_i+x_j)^2\in W_{n,2}. Together with the identity 2x_ix_j = (x_i+x_j)^2-x_i^2-x_j^2, we get x_ix_j\in W_{n,2} (here we crucially used 2\neq 0). Considering (x_i+1)^2-\eta, we can similarly show that (x_i+1)^2\in W_{n,2}, and so x_i\in W_{n,2}. We deduce that W_{n,2}=\mathcal P_{n,2}.

Now proceed by induction on d. In the even-characteristic case d>n, start instead at d=n+1, where the assertion is Lemma 4.5. Thus, in either case, at the inductive step we may assume that \mathcal P_{n,d-1}\subseteq W_{n,d-1}\subseteq W_{n,d}. Let H be a proper norm form of degree d. By Lemma 4.2, there is R\in\mathcal P_{n,d-1}\subseteq W_{n,d} such that H+R is nonvanishing. Thus, H+R\in W_{n,d}, and since R\in W_{n,d}, we also have H\in W_{n,d}. By Proposition 4.4, the proper norm forms span \mathcal H_{n,d}. We have shown that \mathcal H_{n,d}\subseteq W_{n,d}. Together with \mathcal P_{n,d-1}\subseteq W_{n,d}, this gives

and we conclude that W_{n,d}=\mathcal P_{n,d}.

For the first implication, suppose that \Psi is zero-detecting.

Part 1. Assume that q\geq 3, and put \mathcal A=\ker\Psi. Since \Psi(1)=1, the functional \Psi is nonzero, so |\mathcal A|=\frac{|\mathcal P_{n,d}|}{q}. If f,g\in\mathcal A, then f-g\in\mathcal A and f-g has a zero by our hypothesis on \Psi. Thus, \mathcal A is a maximum intersecting family.

If q is odd or d>n, Theorem 1.1 shows that \mathcal A is a star. Since 0\in\mathcal A, there is \mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_q^n such that

The functionals \Psi and \operatorname{ev}_{\mathbf a} have the same kernel. It follows that they are proportional, and their common value 1 at the constant polynomial 1 shows that \Psi=\operatorname{ev}_{\mathbf a}.

Part 2. Now suppose that q\geq4 is even and d\leq n, and put \mathcal K_{n,d}=\ker\Omega_{n,d}. Since 1\in\mathcal K_{n,d}, the restriction \Psi|_{\mathcal K_{n,d}} is nonzero. Its kernel is a maximum intersecting family in \mathcal K_{n,d}, so Proposition 5.10 gives \mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_q^n such that

The two functionals \Psi|_{\mathcal K_{n,d}} and \operatorname{ev}_{\mathbf a}|_{\mathcal K_{n,d}} have the same kernel and both take the value 1 at the constant polynomial 1. Hence \Psi|_{\mathcal K_{n,d}}=\operatorname{ev}_{\mathbf a}|_{\mathcal K_{n,d}}. For every f\in\mathcal P_{n,d},

Since \Psi-\operatorname{ev}_{\mathbf a} vanishes on this kernel, setting \mu_I=\Psi(x_I)-x_I(\mathbf a) gives

Part 3. Let q=2, and put \mathcal A=\ker\Psi. Since \Psi(1)=1, the family \mathcal A has size |\mathcal P_{n,d}|/2, and the zero-detecting property makes it intersecting, as in Part 1. Proposition 3.3 shows that either \Lambda_{0}\subseteq \mathcal A or \Lambda_{1}\subseteq \mathcal A. Since \ker(\Psi)\cap \Lambda_{1}=\emptyset, the only choice is \Lambda_{0}\subseteq \mathcal A.

If two polynomials f and g agree at every point of \mathbb{F}_2^n, then f-g\in \Lambda_{0}, so \Psi(f)=\Psi(g). Consequently, \Psi descends to a linear functional on the space of value vectors \bigl(f(\mathbf a)\bigr)_{\mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_2^n} arising from polynomials. Choose a basis of this space, extend it to a basis of all \mathbb{F}_2-valued vectors indexed by \mathbb{F}_2^n, and declare the functional to be zero on the added basis vectors. The resulting functional is a linear combination of the coordinate maps, so there are coefficients c_{\mathbf a}\in\mathbb{F}_2 such that

Taking S=\{\mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_2^n:c_{\mathbf a}=1\} gives \Psi(f)=\sum_{\mathbf a\in S}f(\mathbf a). Evaluating at the constant polynomial 1 gives 1=\Psi(1)=|S|\pmod2, so |S| is odd.

For the converse, a point evaluation is plainly zero-detecting. Suppose that \Psi has the form in (2) and that \Psi(f)=0. If \Omega_{n,d}(f)=0, then f(\mathbf a)=0. If \Omega_{n,d}(f)\neq0, Lemma 5.9, applied to f and the zero polynomial, gives a zero of f.

Suppose instead that \Psi has the form in (3), where |S| is odd. If f had no zero in \mathbb{F}_2^n, then f(\mathbf a)=1 for every \mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_2^n, and hence \Psi(f)=\sum_{\mathbf a\in S}1=1. Thus, \Psi(f)=0 forces f to have a zero.

For any f_1,\ldots,f_r and \mathbf x\in\mathbb{F}_q^n, the values T(f_i)(\mathbf x) are equal precisely when the values f_i(\mathbf x+\mathbf a) are equal. The map is bijective and sends stars to stars.

Partition C into the |V|/q cosets of the one-dimensional subspace of constant polynomials. Distinct members of a coset differ by a nonzero constant, so their graphs are disjoint. This proves the bound and the first equality statement.

Fix \mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_q^n and b\in\mathbb{F}_q. Each coset modulo the constants contains a unique polynomial f satisfying f(\mathbf a)=b. The resulting family is intersecting and attains the bound.

For any coset D of U in C, the same argument gives |\mathcal A\cap D|\leq |U|/q. There are |V|/|U| such cosets, and these upper bounds sum to |V|/q=|\mathcal A|, so equality holds for every D.

Subtract a fixed member of \mathcal F, so that 0\in\mathcal F. For each i, Lemma 2.2 gives a unique a_i\in\mathbb{F}_q such that x_i-a_i\in\mathcal F. Translating the variables by \mathbf a=(a_1,\ldots,a_n) gives 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal F. Translation invariance ensures that the transformed family remains in V.

By the equality case of Lemma 2.2, \mathcal F contains exactly one member of each coset modulo the constants. Every such coset has a unique representative f\in V_0, so its member of \mathcal F can be written uniquely as f+\varphi(f). The inclusions 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal F give the stated values of \varphi.

The second case is immediate. Suppose that \mathbf a\neq\mathbf b, and let R\in\mathcal P_{m,D}. Choose an affine-linear polynomial P satisfying P(\mathbf{a})=c_0 and P(\mathbf{b})=c_1-R(\mathbf b). Setting Q=P+R yields Q(\mathbf b)=c_1 and Q-P=R.

Given u,v\in V, write u-v=s_1+\cdots+s_m with s_j\in\mathcal D. This is possible because \mathcal D spans V and is closed under multiplication by nonzero scalars. Applying the hypothesis successively gives \vartheta(u)=\vartheta(v).

Let \overline{Z}(f) be the reduction of Z(f) mod 2. We view \overline{Z}(f) as an element of \mathbb{F}_2\subseteq\mathbb{F}_q. Observe that

Moreover,

Consequently, \sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{F}_q^{d}} \mathbf{x}^{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=0 if \alpha_i<q-1 for some i. As \deg f^{q-1}\le d(q-1), the only monomial of f^{q-1} that survives after summing over \mathbb F_q^d is x_1^{q-1}\cdots x_d^{q-1}. We obtain

It remains to compute this coefficient. Write f=\sum_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} c_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\mathbf{x}^{\boldsymbol{\beta}} so that c_{\mathbf 1}=a, where \mathbf{1}=(1,\ldots,1). A term in the multinomial expansion that contributes to \mathbf x^{(q-1)\mathbf1} is specified by nonnegative integers m_{\boldsymbol\beta} satisfying

Taking total degrees shows that every \boldsymbol{\beta} with m_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}>0 satisfies |\boldsymbol{\beta}|=d.

Suppose the corresponding multinomial coefficient \binom{q-1}{(m_{\boldsymbol{\beta}})_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} is odd. By Kummer’s theorem, the addition \sum_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}m_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}=q-1 is carry-free in base 2. Since q-1 is odd, exactly one m_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} is odd. Reducing the second equality modulo 2 shows that its exponent vector satisfies \boldsymbol{\beta}\equiv\mathbf 1\pmod 2. But |\boldsymbol{\beta}|=d, so its d coordinates are positive odd integers with sum d. Hence \boldsymbol{\beta}=\mathbf 1.

Replace m_{\mathbf 1} by m_{\mathbf 1}-1, and then divide all the m_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} values by 2. The same argument then applies with q-1 replaced by (q-2)/2=2^{r-1}-1. Repeating this for all binary digits of q-1 shows that

Therefore, every other multinomial coefficient is even, and

Combining equations (Proof) and (?) yields \overline{Z}(f)=a^{q-1}, as required.

By nondegeneracy of the trace pairing, there is b\in\mathbb{F}_{q^m}^\times such that T(\gamma)=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathbb{F}_{q^m}/\mathbb{F}_q}(b\gamma). It is therefore enough to find y\in\mathbb{F}_{q^m} satisfying

and then take \gamma=b^{-1}y.

For u,w\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times, let

By the trace–norm estimate of Moisio and Wan [MW10, Theorem 1.2],

We show the main term is larger than the error term. If m=3, then

If m\geq4, then

because q^{(m-2)/2}\geq2^{m-2}>m-1. Hence \nu_m(u,w)>0, and the required element y exists.

By Lemma 2.2, a maximum intersecting family contains exactly one polynomial for each linear part. This allows us to write the family as \mathcal F_\varphi for some function \varphi\colon\mathbb{F}_q^n\to\mathbb{F}_q. Conversely, every \mathcal F_\varphi is intersecting: the difference of two distinct members is a nonconstant affine-linear polynomial, which has a zero. As \mathcal F_\varphi has q^n members, it is a maximum family.

The family is the star \{f \in \mathcal{P}_{n,1}: f(\mathbf s)=b\} precisely when \mathbf a\cdot\mathbf s+\varphi(\mathbf a)=b for all \mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_q^n, or equivalently, \varphi(\mathbf a)=b-\mathbf a\cdot\mathbf s for every \mathbf a.

If q=2 and n=1, every function \mathbb{F}_2\to\mathbb{F}_2 is affine, so Lemma 3.1 shows that every maximum intersecting family is a star. In every other case, the lemma gives a maximum family that is not a star: take \varphi(a)=a^2 when n=1 and q\geq3, and \varphi(\mathbf a)=a_1a_2 for \mathbf a=(a_1,\ldots,a_n) when n\geq2.

The sets \Lambda_{\epsilon} partition \mathcal P_{n,d}, and f\mapsto f+1 pairs them into sets of equal size. No member of one set intersects a member of its partner, so an intersecting family can meet at most one set from each pair. Choosing one set from each pair accounts for exactly half of \mathcal P_{n,d}; a maximum family must therefore contain one entire set from every pair. Conversely, if two polynomials in such a union failed to intersect, their represented functions would be complementary, placing them in the two sets of the same pair, a contradiction.

There are 2^{n+1} distinct stars. If n=1, the 4 functions \mathbb{F}_2\to\mathbb{F}_2 are affine-linear and form two complementary pairs. Proposition 3.3 gives 4 maximum intersecting families, coinciding with the 4 stars.

Suppose that n\geq2. The pairs \{0,1\}, \{x_i,1+x_i\} for 1\leq i\leq n, and \{x_1+x_2,1+x_1+x_2\} give n+2 distinct complementary pairs. Proposition 3.3 gives at least 2^{n+2} maximum intersecting families, whereas there are only 2^{n+1} stars.

We first show that \mathcal{F} is closed under scalar multiplication. Fix f\in\mathcal F and \lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q. For every g\in\mathcal F, the polynomials 0,f,g agree at some input \mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{F}_{q}^{n}, and their common value is zero, so f(\mathbf{a})=g(\mathbf{a})=0; then \lambda f and g also agree at \mathbf a. Hence \mathcal F\cup\{\lambda f\} is intersecting; since \mathcal F has maximum size, we must have \lambda f\in\mathcal F.

We next prove closure under differences. Suppose that g-h\notin\mathcal F for some g,h\in\mathcal F. The family \mathcal F\cup\{g-h\} is not intersecting because \mathcal F already has maximum size. Since \mathcal F itself is intersecting, some f\in\mathcal F does not intersect g-h; equivalently, g-h-f is nonvanishing.

Since q>2, we may choose \alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{F}_q^{\times} with \alpha+\beta\neq0. Let \gamma=-(\alpha+\beta), so that \alpha,\beta,\gamma are nonzero and \alpha+\beta+\gamma=0. By closure under scalar multiplication, the three polynomials

belong to \mathcal F. Being three members of a 3-wise intersecting family, they agree at some \mathbf u\in\mathbb{F}_q^n, say \alpha^{-1}g(\mathbf u)=-\beta^{-1}h(\mathbf u) =-\gamma^{-1}f(\mathbf u)=c. Then (g-h-f)(\mathbf u)=(\alpha+\beta+\gamma)c=0, contradicting the nonvanishing of g-h-f.

Let \mathcal F be a maximum 3-wise intersecting family. After applying Corollary 2.3, we may assume that 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal F. By Proposition 3.5, \mathcal F is an \mathbb{F}_q-linear subspace.

We claim that \mathcal F is closed under multiplication by an arbitrary polynomial g, provided the product has degree at most d:

To prove this, let f\in\mathcal F and let g satisfy \deg(fg)\leq d. Lemma 2.2 gives a unique c\in\mathbb{F}_q such that fg+c\in\mathcal F. The three polynomials 0,f,fg+c agree at some \mathbf u\in\mathbb{F}_q^n. Their common value is zero: f(\mathbf u)=0 and f(\mathbf u)g(\mathbf u)+c=0. These equalities force c=0, proving (Proof).

Every nonconstant monomial \mu of degree at most d is divisible by some x_i. Since x_i\in\mathcal F, (Proof) gives \mu\in\mathcal F. Since \mathcal F is linear, it contains the star \{f\in\mathcal P_{n,d}:f(0)=0\}, which has the same size as \mathcal F. The two families are equal, and \mathcal F is a star.

By Lemma 2.2, exactly one of u and u+1 belongs to \mathcal F for every u\in\mathcal P_{n,d}.

For part (1), suppose first that fg\notin\mathcal F. Then fg+1\in\mathcal F, so the three polynomials 0,f,fg+1 agree at some input \mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}. Their common value is zero, but f(\mathbf a)=0 gives (fg+1)(\mathbf a)=1, a contradiction. This proves that fg\in\mathcal F. If fg+f\notin\mathcal F, then fg+f+1\in\mathcal F. Now, the three polynomials 0,f,fg+f+1 agree at some input \mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}; we have f(\mathbf b)=0 but (fg+f+1)(\mathbf b)=1, another contradiction. We have proved that fg,fg+f\in\mathcal F; symmetry gives fg+g\in\mathcal F.

If f+g+fg\notin\mathcal F, then f,g,f+g+fg+1 agree at some input \mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}. Writing c=f(\mathbf a)=g(\mathbf a), the third polynomial takes the value c+c+c^2+1=c+1 there, a contradiction. It remains to prove that f+g\in\mathcal F. Otherwise, f+g+1\in\mathcal F, and f+fg, g+fg, and f+g+1 agree at some input \mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}. Equality of the first two values gives f(\mathbf b)=g(\mathbf b). The first polynomial then has value f(\mathbf b)+f(\mathbf b)^2=0, whereas the third has value 1, a contradiction. This proves part (1).

For part (2), suppose that f+gh\notin\mathcal F. Then f+gh+1\in\mathcal F. Then f,f+h,f+gh+1 agree at some input \mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}. Subtracting the value of f(\mathbf{a}) gives simultaneously h(\mathbf{a})=0 and g(\mathbf{a})h(\mathbf{a})+1=0, which is impossible.

Let \mathcal F be a maximum 3-wise intersecting family. After applying Corollary 2.3, we may assume that 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal F. Repeatedly applying Lemma 3.7(1) to the coordinate polynomials shows that every linear form belongs to \mathcal F.

We claim that, for 0\leq r\leq n, every linear form w and all polynomials s_1,\ldots,s_r of degree at most d-1 satisfy

We argue by induction on r. The case r=0 was just proved. Assume the claim for r-1, and put

The induction hypothesis, applied once with w and once with w+x_r, gives p,p+x_r\in\mathcal F. Applying Lemma 3.7(2) with f=p, h=x_r, and g=s_r gives p+s_rx_r\in\mathcal F, proving (?).

Let f\in\mathcal P_{n,d} have zero constant term and linear part w. For each monomial term of f of degree at least two, choose a variable x_i dividing it. Collecting the monomials by their chosen variable and factoring x_i out of the ith group gives

where \deg s_i\leq d-1. Equation (?) gives f\in\mathcal F. The polynomials with zero constant term form a star of the same size as \mathcal F, so the two families are equal.

(1) Let \mathcal F be an intersecting family, and choose f_1,f_2,f_3\in\mathcal F. Put g=f_2-f_1 and h=f_3-f_1. By Lemma 2.1, the family \mathcal F-f_1 is intersecting and contains 0,g,h. It is enough to show that g and h have a common zero.

Pairwise intersection gives a zero of each of g, h, and g+h, so none is the constant polynomial 1. If the equations g=0 and h=0 were inconsistent, then 1 would lie in their \mathbb{F}_2-linear span, forcing one of g,h,g+h to equal 1, a contradiction.

(2) By part (1), pairwise and 3-wise intersection are equivalent for families in \mathcal P_{n,1} over \mathbb{F}_2. The assertion follows from Proposition 3.2.

(3) Let \mathcal F be a maximum 4-wise intersecting family. A star is 4-wise intersecting and has size 2^n, while Lemma 2.2 bounds every intersecting family by 2^n. Maximality gives |\mathcal F|=2^n, and equality in the lemma gives exactly one member with each linear part: \mathcal F=\{\mathbf a\cdot\mathbf x+\varphi(\mathbf a):\mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_2^n\} for some function \varphi\colon\mathbb{F}_2^n\to\mathbb{F}_2. After subtracting \varphi(0) from every member, we may assume that \varphi(0)=0.

For any \mathbf a,\mathbf b\in\mathbb{F}_2^n, the 4 members indexed by 0,\mathbf a,\mathbf b,\mathbf a+\mathbf b agree at some \mathbf u\in\mathbb{F}_2^n, and the common value is zero because the member indexed by 0 is the zero polynomial. Adding \mathbf a\cdot\mathbf u+\varphi(\mathbf a)=0 and \mathbf b\cdot\mathbf u+\varphi(\mathbf b)=0, and comparing with (\mathbf a+\mathbf b)\cdot\mathbf u+\varphi(\mathbf a+\mathbf b)=0, gives \varphi(\mathbf a+\mathbf b)=\varphi(\mathbf a)+\varphi(\mathbf b). So \varphi is linear, say \varphi(\mathbf a)=\mathbf a\cdot\mathbf s, and the normalized family is \mathcal F=\{\mathbf a\cdot(\mathbf x+\mathbf s):\mathbf a\in\mathbb{F}_2^n\}, the star centered at (\mathbf s,0). Undoing the constant translation shows that the original family is also a star.

Let H(\mathbf{x})=\operatorname{N}(\alpha_1x_1+\cdots+\alpha_nx_n). Put U=\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{F}_q}\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\} and u= b_1\alpha_1+\cdots+b_n\alpha_n. Since U is a proper subspace, each nonzero norm fiber has size \frac{q^{d}-1}{q-1}>q^{d-1}\geq |U|. Using \delta+\operatorname{N}(u)\neq 0, we choose t\notin U with \operatorname{N}(t)=\delta+\operatorname{N}(u). Define

The leading homogeneous parts cancel, so R\in\mathcal P_{n,d-1}. Moreover, t-u\notin U, so H+R is nonvanishing, and R(\mathbf b)=\operatorname{N}(t)-\operatorname{N}(u)=\delta.

The coefficients of a norm form \operatorname{N}(\beta_1y_1+\cdots+\beta_sy_s) can be computed explicitly. For a multi-index \mathbf e=(e_1,\ldots,e_s) with |\mathbf e|=d, the coefficient of \mathbf y^{\mathbf e} is

We view c_{\mathbf{e}} as a polynomial in variables \beta_1, \beta_2, \ldots, \beta_s. The base-q expansion of the exponent \sum_{j\in I_i}q^j recovers the set I_i. If \mathbf e\neq\mathbf f, then c_{\mathbf e} and c_{\mathbf f} do not share any common monomial in \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{s}. It follows that the polynomials c_{\mathbf{e}} are \mathbb{F}_q-linearly independent. Moreover, the degree of c_{\mathbf{e}} in each variable is at most \sum_{j=0}^{d-1}q^j=\frac{q^d-1}{q-1}<q^d. If an \mathbb{F}_q-linear combination of them vanishes on \mathbb{F}_{q^d}^s, then this combination is the zero polynomial by Lemma 2.5. Thus, the functions c_{\mathbf{e}}\colon\mathbb{F}_{q^d}^s\to\mathbb{F}_q with |\mathbf{e}|=d are linearly independent. The matrix \bigl(c_{\mathbf{e}}(\boldsymbol\beta)\bigr)_{\boldsymbol\beta\in \mathbb{F}_{q^d}^s,\,|\mathbf{e}|=d} has full column rank, which coincides with \dim_{\mathbb{F}_q}\mathcal H_{s,d}. Its row indexed by \boldsymbol\beta is the coefficient vector of \operatorname{N}(\beta_1y_1+\cdots+\beta_sy_s), so these norm forms span \mathcal H_{s,d}.

If d>n, then every norm form is proper, since its parameters span a subspace of \mathbb{F}_{q^d} of dimension at most n<d=[\mathbb{F}_{q^d}:\mathbb{F}_q]. The spanning assertion follows from Lemma 4.3.

Assume from now on that q is odd and d\leq n. Let W_{\mathrm{prop}} be the span of the proper norm forms. Every degree-d monomial supported on fewer than d variables belongs to W_{\mathrm{prop}}. Indeed, let I\subseteq[n] be its support. The norm forms in the variables (x_i)_{i\in I} are proper, since |I|<d, and by Lemma 4.3 they span all degree-d forms in those variables.

It remains to demonstrate that each squarefree degree-d monomial is in W_{\mathrm{prop}}. After relabeling, it suffices to show x_1\cdots x_d \in W_{\mathrm{prop}}. For t,\alpha_3,\ldots,\alpha_d\in \mathbb{F}_{q^d}, the norm form

is proper, because its parameters span a space of dimension at most d-1. View t,\alpha_3,\ldots,\alpha_d as variables. Note that \Gamma(t,\alpha_3,\ldots,\alpha_d):=[x_1\cdots x_d] H is a polynomial whose degree in each variable is smaller than q^d, and it contains the term 2t^{1+q}\prod_{i=3}^d\alpha_i^{q^{i-1}}. Since q is odd, this coefficient does not vanish. Thus, \Gamma is a nonzero polynomial and Lemma 2.5 gives a choice of parameters for which \Gamma\neq0. Every monomial in H other than x_1\cdots x_d is not squarefree and belongs to W_{\mathrm{prop}} by the previous paragraph. Hence x_1\cdots x_d\in W_{\mathrm{prop}}.

Finally, if \lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times and H=\operatorname{N}(\alpha_1x_1+\cdots+\alpha_nx_n) is proper, choose u\in \mathbb{F}_{q^d}^\times with \operatorname{N}(u)=\lambda. Then \lambda H=\operatorname{N}(u\alpha_1x_1+\cdots+u\alpha_nx_n) and the norm form on the right is again proper.

Each polynomial \operatorname{N}_{\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}/\mathbb{F}_q}(\alpha_0+\alpha_1x_1+\cdots+\alpha_nx_n) is nonvanishing, because an \mathbb{F}_{q}-zero of such a polynomial implies that \alpha_0, \ldots, \alpha_n are \mathbb{F}_q-linearly dependent. To prove spanning, suppose that an \mathbb{F}_q-linear functional L on \mathcal P_{n,n+1} annihilates all these polynomials as (\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_n) ranges over ordered \mathbb{F}_q-bases of \mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}. Set

Write

View P as a polynomial over \mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}; it has degree at most D by the same reasoning as in (Proof). By hypothesis on L, the polynomial P vanishes at every ordered \mathbb{F}_q-basis of \mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}, and the number of such bases is

Here we use Bernoulli’s inequality, and the strict inequality uses the assumption q\geq3. Thus the Schwartz–Zippel lemma [S80] implies that P is the zero polynomial.

It follows that L annihilates every affine norm polynomial

for every choice of \alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_n\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}} (not just for ordered \mathbb{F}_q-bases of \mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}).

Homogenization gives a linear isomorphism

Under this isomorphism, the norm polynomial in (?) corresponds to

These homogeneous norm forms span \mathcal H_{n+1,n+1} by Lemma 4.3. As their dehomogenizations span \mathcal P_{n,n+1}, we obtain L=0. As L is arbitrary, the claim about spanning is complete.

Finally, if \lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times, choose t\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}^\times with \operatorname{N}_{\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}/\mathbb{F}_q}(t)=\lambda. Scaling every \alpha_i by t preserves the basis condition and multiplies the norm polynomial by \lambda.

By Lemma 2.2, \mathcal A meets every U-coset in a maximum intersecting family. This family must be a star, because subtracting a coset representative allows us to move the family into U where we can apply the hypothesis. A star in a coset of U determines its in-center uniquely as a point of \mathbb{F}_q^m; we can view this point in \mathbb{F}_q^n by setting the remaining coordinates equal to 0.

For a coset C of U, let \boldsymbol\sigma(C) denote the in-center of \mathcal{A}\cap C. Fix H\in\mathcal Z and write C=g+U where g\in V. Suppose, to the contrary, that \boldsymbol\sigma(C)\neq \boldsymbol\sigma(C+H). Write

with c_1,c_2\in\mathbb{F}_q. As the two in-centers differ, Lemma 2.4, applied inside U\cong\mathcal P_{m,D}, shows that the difference set of the stars \{u\in U:u(\boldsymbol\sigma(C))=c_1\} and \{u\in U:u(\boldsymbol\sigma(C+H))=c_2\} is all of U. In particular, the element 0\in U is in the difference set; we deduce that the two stars share an element u. Then P\colonequals g+u, Q \colonequals g+H+u satisfy P\in\mathcal A\cap C, Q\in\mathcal A\cap(C+H), and Q-P=H. As H is nonvanishing, this contradicts the intersecting property of \mathcal A. Thus, \boldsymbol\sigma(C+H)=\boldsymbol\sigma(C).

Since \lambda H is nonvanishing for every \lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times, the same argument gives \boldsymbol\sigma(C+\lambda H)=\boldsymbol\sigma(C). As the images of the elements of \mathcal Z span V/U, it follows from Lemma 2.6 that \boldsymbol\sigma is a constant.

For the final assertion, let f\in V_0 and u\in U\cap V_0. Since U contains the constants, f+\varphi(f) and (f+u)+\varphi(f+u) are in the same U-coset; they take the same value at the in-center 0. Using u(0)=0, this leads to \varphi(f+u)=\varphi(f).

Let \mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal P_{n,d} be a maximum intersecting family, and let \mathcal Z\subseteq\mathcal P_{n,d} be the following subset:

By combining Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 4.4, we have

For A\in\mathcal H_{n,d}, write \mathcal F_A=\{P\in\mathcal P_{n,d-1}:A+P\in\mathcal F\}. Lemma 5.1, applied with U=\mathcal P_{n,d-1}, shows that there exists a common in-center \mathbf s\in\mathbb{F}_q^n and a value b_A\in\mathbb{F}_q for each A satisfying

Fix A\in\mathcal H_{n,d} and a proper norm form H\in\mathcal H_{n,d}. The intersecting property says that H+Q-P has a zero whenever P\in\mathcal F_A and Q\in\mathcal F_{A+H}. By Lemma 2.4, the differences Q-P run through all R\in\mathcal P_{n,d-1} with R(\mathbf s)=b_{A+H}-b_A. If b_{A+H}-b_A\neq-H(\mathbf s), then Lemma 4.2, applied at \mathbf s with \delta=b_{A+H}-b_A, would produce such an R for which H+R is nonvanishing, a contradiction. Hence b_{A+H}-b_A=-H(\mathbf s).

Define \xi(A)=b_A+A(\mathbf s) for each A\in\mathcal H_{n,d}. Then \xi(A+H)=\xi(A) for every proper norm form H. By Proposition 4.4, the proper norm forms span \mathcal H_{n,d} and are closed under multiplication by nonzero scalars. Lemma 2.6 applied to \xi(A+H)=\xi(A) implies that \xi is constant. Every member of \mathcal F can be expressed as A+P for some P\in\mathcal F_{A}; we compute

This shows \mathcal F\subseteq \{f\in\mathcal P_{n,d}:f(\mathbf s)=\xi(0)\}. By comparing cardinalities, we conclude that \mathcal F=\{f\in\mathcal P_{n,d}:f(\mathbf s)=\xi(0)\} is a star.

For i\in[n], let U_i be the space of polynomials that do not involve x_i. Then U_i\cong\mathcal P_{n-1,d}, so every maximum intersecting family in U_i is a star. Since \mathcal P_{n,d} is spanned by nonvanishing polynomials, Lemma 5.1 applies with V=\mathcal P_{n,d} and U=U_i. The intersection \mathcal F\cap U_i contains 0 and every x_j with j\neq i, so its in-center is the origin. Hence

Thus, changing the coefficient of any nonconstant monomial that omits at least one variable does not change \varphi. Therefore \varphi(f) depends only on the coefficients of the monomials involving all n variables. Finally, if d<n, there are no such nonconstant monomials of degree at most d and thus \mathcal F=\{f\in\mathcal P_{n,d}:f(0)=0\}.

We argue by induction on n. The case n=1 is Theorem 5.4. Suppose that n\geq2, and let \mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal P_{n,2} be a maximum intersecting family. By induction and Theorem 1.2 (3), Proposition 5.3 applies. If n\geq 3, then Proposition 5.3 already implies that \mathcal F is a star.

It remains to consider n=2. By Corollary 2.3, we may write

where \varphi(0)=\varphi(x_1)=\varphi(x_2)=0. By Proposition 5.3, \varphi(f) depends only on the coefficient of x_1x_2. Thus, there is a function \Phi\colon\mathbb{F}_q\to\mathbb{F}_q, with \Phi(0)=0, such that \varphi(f)=\Phi([x_1x_2]f).

Fix a,z\in\mathbb{F}_q. We claim that \Phi(z+a)=\Phi(z). Otherwise, \delta=\Phi(z+a)-\Phi(z)\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times. The quadratic form H=\left(x_1+\frac a2x_2\right)^2=\operatorname{N}_{\mathbb{F}_{q^2}/\mathbb{F}_q}\left(x_1+\frac a2x_2\right) is a proper norm form and satisfies [x_1x_2]H=a. Lemma 4.2, applied at the origin, gives R\in\mathcal P_{2,1} such that N=H+R is nonvanishing and N(0)=R(0)=\delta. Choose f\in V_0 with [x_1x_2]f=z. Then the two members

of \mathcal F would differ by the nonvanishing polynomial N, a contradiction.

Therefore, \Phi(z+a)=\Phi(z). Since a and z were arbitrary, \Phi is constant. As \Phi(0)=0, we have \Phi=0. It follows that \mathcal F=\{f\in\mathcal P_{2,2}:f(0)=0\} is a star.

The base case d=2 is Proposition 5.5. Since q is odd, Proposition 5.2 applies successively at every larger degree.

We proceed by induction on n. When n=1, this is Theorem 5.4. Suppose n\geq2. By induction, every maximum intersecting family in \mathcal P_{n-1,n} is a star, and Proposition 5.2 gives the same conclusion in \mathcal P_{n-1,n+1}.

Let \mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal P_{n,n+1} be a maximum intersecting family. By Corollary 2.3, we may assume that 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal F. Put

The same corollary gives a function \varphi\colon V_0\to\mathbb{F}_q such that

Step 1: Reduction to monomials involving all variables. Since \mathcal P_{n,n+1} is spanned by nonvanishing polynomials by Lemma 4.5, Proposition 5.3 shows that \varphi(f) depends only on the coefficients of the monomials involving all n variables. The only such monomials of degree at most n+1 are

Define the surjective linear map

Its restriction to V_0 is also surjective. Thus, there is a function \Phi\colon\mathbb{F}_q^{n+1}\to\mathbb{F}_q, with \Phi(0)=0, such that

For a nonvanishing polynomial H\in\mathcal P_{n,n+1}, we claim that

for all \mathbf z\in\mathbb{F}_q^{n+1}. Indeed, suppose to the contrary that \Phi(\mathbf z+\rho(H))-\Phi(\mathbf z)=H(0). Define h=H-H(0)\in V_0 and choose f\in V_0 with \rho(f)=\mathbf{z}. By (?), the two members f+\varphi(f)=f+\Phi(\mathbf{z}) and f+h+\varphi(f+h)=f+H-H(0)+\Phi(\mathbf{z}+\rho(H)) of \mathcal F would differ by

contradicting the nonvanishing assumption on H.

Step 2: Using norm forms to control \Phi. Choose linearly independent \theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}, write \boldsymbol\theta=(\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n), and for each \gamma\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}} set

For 1\leq i\leq n, the coefficient B_i(\boldsymbol\theta) =[m_i]Q_{\gamma,\boldsymbol\theta} is independent of \gamma; write

The coefficient of m_0 is

Indeed, the coefficient is the corresponding permanent, which equals the determinant in characteristic 2. Hence \Delta_{\boldsymbol\theta}:\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}\to\mathbb{F}_q is a nonzero \mathbb{F}_q-linear map, and the Moore determinant criterion [Moo96] gives

Fix \mathbf z\in\mathbb{F}_q^{n+1} and t\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times. Let a\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times be arbitrary. Lemma 2.8 gives \gamma\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}} such that

Since t\neq 0, equation (?) gives \gamma\notin\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{F}_q}\{\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n\}, so Q_{\gamma,\boldsymbol\theta} is nonvanishing. Moreover,

Let H=Q_{\gamma,\boldsymbol{\theta}}. Observe that \Phi\bigl(\mathbf z+(t,\mathbf B(\boldsymbol\theta))\bigr)-\Phi(\mathbf z)\neq H(0)=a by (?). Since a\in\mathbb{F}_{q}^{\times} was arbitrary, we must have

Step 3: Showing that \Phi is constant. Let \mathcal D be the set of all (t,\mathbf B(\boldsymbol\theta)) with t\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times and \theta_1,\ldots,\theta_n linearly independent. Equation (?) says that \Phi is invariant under translation by every element of \mathcal D. Note that the set \mathcal D is closed under multiplication by nonzero scalars: if \lambda\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times, choose \xi\in\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}^\times with \operatorname{N}_{\mathbb{F}_{q^{n+1}}/\mathbb{F}_q}(\xi)=\lambda and replace each \theta_i by \xi\theta_i.

Finally, we claim that \mathcal D spans \mathbb{F}_q^{n+1}. Fix \boldsymbol\theta and c\in\mathbb{F}_q^\times. Choose t_1\in\mathbb{F}_q\setminus\{0,c\} and put t_2=c+t_1. Since q\geq4, both t_1 and t_2 are nonzero, and we have

Thus, \mathbb{F}_q\times\{0\} lies in the span of \mathcal D, and hence so does (0,\mathbf B(\boldsymbol\theta)). Projecting the spanning family in Lemma 4.5 onto the coefficients of m_1,\ldots,m_n shows that the vectors \mathbf B(\boldsymbol\theta) span \mathbb{F}_q^n. Therefore, \mathcal D spans \mathbb{F}_q^{n+1}. Lemma 2.6 now implies that \Phi is constant. Since \Phi(0)=0, we have \Phi=0. We conclude that \mathcal F = \{f\in\mathcal P_{n,n+1}:f(0)=0\} is a star.

The base case d=n+1 is Proposition 5.7; every larger degree follows successively from Proposition 5.2.

Choose I\in\binom{[n]}{d} such that [x_I](f-g)\neq0, and set x_j=0 for all j\notin I. The resulting polynomial has degree at most d in the d variables indexed by I, with nonzero x_I-coefficient. Lemma 2.7 gives a zero of this restricted polynomial, which extends to a zero of f-g in \mathbb{F}_q^n.

Let \mathcal A be a maximum intersecting family in \mathcal K_{n,d}. Translation of the variables leaves the degree-d homogeneous part unchanged, so \mathcal K_{n,d} is translation invariant. By Corollary 2.3, we may assume that 0,x_1,\ldots,x_n\in\mathcal A. Writing

the same corollary gives a function \varphi\colon V_0\to\mathbb{F}_q such that

For S\in\binom{[n]}{d-1}, let U_S be the space of polynomials of degree at most d involving only the variables x_i with i\in S. Then U_S\cong\mathcal P_{d-1,d} and U_S\subseteq\mathcal K_{n,d}. By Theorem 1.2 (2), \mathcal K_{n,d} is spanned by nonvanishing polynomials, while Theorem 5.8 shows that every maximum intersecting family in U_S is a star. Hence Lemma 5.1 applies. Since \mathcal A\cap U_S contains 0 and every x_i with i\in S, its in-center is the origin, and therefore

Every monomial term of f\in V_0 involves at most d-1 variables: a degree-d monomial involving d variables would be squarefree, and its coefficient vanishes by the definition of \mathcal K_{n,d}. Thus, every monomial term belongs to some U_S. Removing them one at a time gives \varphi(f)=\varphi(0)=0. Hence \varphi=0, and \mathcal A=\{f\in\mathcal K_{n,d}:f(0)=0\}=V_0.

First consider a family of the form (5.11). Two members in the same \Omega_{n,d}-fiber agree at the point chosen for that fiber, while two members in different fibers intersect by Lemma 5.9. Thus the family is intersecting. The map \Omega_{n,d} is surjective. Since \mathcal K_{n,d} contains the constants, the evaluation condition selects exactly |\mathcal K_{n,d}|/q polynomials from each fiber. Therefore

so the family is maximum.

Conversely, let \mathcal F\subseteq\mathcal P_{n,d} be a maximum intersecting family, and put

By Lemma 2.2, every \mathcal F(\omega) has size |\mathcal K_{n,d}|/q. Choose g_\omega\in\Omega_{n,d}^{-1}(\omega). Applying Proposition 5.10 to \mathcal F(\omega)-g_\omega and translating back gives \mathbf s_\omega\in \mathbb{F}_q^n and c_\omega\in \mathbb{F}_q such that

Taking the union over \omega gives (5.11).

It remains to prove uniqueness of the representation. Fix a fiber \Omega_{n,d}^{-1}(\omega) and suppose that

Suppose \mathbf{a}\neq \mathbf{a}'. Choose h\in\mathcal P_{n,d} with \Omega_{n,d}(h)=\omega. Consider the element f=g+h where g\in\mathcal P_{n,1} such that g(\mathbf{a})=b-h(\mathbf{a}) and g(\mathbf{a}') = b'-h(\mathbf{a}')+1. Observe that f\in \Omega_{n,d}^{-1}(\omega) satisfies f(\mathbf{a})=b but f(\mathbf{a}')=b'+1, a contradiction.

Thus, \mathbf{a}=\mathbf{a}' and b=b'. This proves the uniqueness of the pair (\mathbf{a},b) on each fiber \Omega_{n,d}^{-1}(\omega).

A constant choice gives a star. Conversely, if the family is the star \{f\in\mathcal P_{n,d}:f(\mathbf s)=c\}, then its intersection with every \Omega_{n,d}-fiber is described by the same pair (\mathbf s,c). The uniqueness in Proposition 5.11 forces (\mathbf s_\omega,c_\omega)=(\mathbf s,c) for every \omega.

Since |\mathcal M_{n,d}|>1, choose a nonconstant function \omega\mapsto (\mathbf s_\omega,c_\omega). Proposition 5.11 gives a maximum intersecting family, and Corollary 5.12 shows that it is not a star.