5 The union-closed conjecture
Definition (Union-closed).
Let
be a (finite) family of sets. Say that
is union closed if for any ,
we have .
Conjecture.
If is a non-empty
union-closed family, then there exists
that belongs to at least
sets in .
Theorem (Justin Gilmer).
There exists
such that if is a union-closed
family, then there exists
that belongs to at least
of the sets in .
Justin Gilmer’s constant was about .
His method has a “natural barrier” of .
We will briefly and “informally” discuss this.
A reason for this is that if we weaken the property union-closed to “almost union-closed” (if
we pick two elements randomly, then with high probability the union is in the family), then
is the
right bound.
Let . With high
probability, if are
random elements of ,
then .
If then almost
all of is
.
One of the roots of the quadratic
is .
If we want to prove Justin Gilmer’s Theorem, it is natural to let
be independent uniformly
random elements of
and to consider .
Since is
union-closed, , so
. Now we would like to
get a lower bound for
assuming that no
belongs to more than
sets in .
|
Lemma 5.1.
Assuming that:
Then .
Proof.
Think of as
characteristic functions. Write
for etc. By the Chain rule it is
enough to prove for every
that
|
By Submodularity,
|
For each
write ,
.
Then
|
which by hypothesis is at least
|
So
|
But
|
and
|
Similarly for the other term, so the RHS equals
|
which by hypothesis is greater than
|
as required. □
This shows that if is
union-closed, then ,
so . Non-trivial
as long as .
We shall obtain . We start by proving
the diagonal case – i.e. when .
Lemma 5.2 (Boppana).
For every ,
Proof.
Write
for .
Then ,
so and
, so
. Equality
also when .
Toolkit:
Let .
Then
So
This is zero if and only if
|
which simplifies to
Since this is a cubic with negative leading coefficient and constant term, it has a negative root, so it has at most two roots in
. It follows (using Rolle’s
theorem) that has at
most five roots in ,
up to multiplicity.
But
|
So , so
has a double
root at .
We can also calculate (using ):
So there’s a double root at .
Also, note .
So is either
non-negative on all of or
non-positive on all of .
If is
small,
so there exists
such that .
□
Lemma 5.3.
The function
is minimised on
at a point where .
Proof.
We can extend continuously
to the boundary by setting
whenever
or is
or
. To see this, note first
that it’s valid if neither
nor is
.
If either
or is
small, then
So it tends to
again.
One can check that ,
so is minimised
somewhere in .
Let be a
minimum with .
Let and
note that
Also,
with equality at . So the partial
derivatives of LHS are both
at .
So . So it’s enough
to prove that is
an injection. ,
so
Differentiating gives
|
The numerator differentiates to , which
is negative everywhere. Also, it equals
at . So
it has a constant sign. □
Combining this with Lemma 5.2, we get that
This allows us to take .