7 Intersecting families

A family A of subsets of [n] is intersecting if A∩B≠∅ for every A,B∈A. Since we can’t include both A and Ac, |A|≤2n−1 for any intersecting family A. Equality holds if A={A⊂[n]:i∈A} for some i. If n is odd, another example is {A⊂[n]:|A|>n∕2}. If n is even, we can take {A⊂[n]:|A|>n∕2} and add in exactly one of A and Ac for each A∈[n](n∕2).

There exist plenty of other extremal examples (e.g. A is extremal for m, then B={B⊂[n]:|B∩[m]|∈A} is extremal for n).

Notation. [n]={1,…,n}, S(r)={A⊂S:|A|=r}.

What if we look at families of sets of size r for some given r?

If r>n2 we can take all of [n](r), so we get nr. If r=n2, we can take one set from each {A,Ac} to get 12nr. When r<n2, it gets more interesting.

Theorem 7.1 (Erdős–Ko–Rado Theorem). Let r,n∈ℕ with r<n2. Let A⊂[n](r) be an intersecting family. Then |A|≤n−1r−1, with equality if and only if A is of the form {A∈[n](r):i∈A}.

Proof (Katona). Let A⊂[n](r) be an intersecting family. We need to prove that if A⊂[n](r) is chosen uniformly, then

ℙ[A∈A]≤rn(=n−1r−1nr).

Let x1,x2,…,xn be a random cyclic ordering of {1,2,…,n}. An interval in this cyclic ordering is a set of the form {xi,xi+1,…,xi+r−1} for some i (addition modulo n).

There are n intervals, so we will be done if we can prove that at most r of them belong to A. (That is because we can choose a random element of [n](r) by first choosing a random cyclic ordering and then choosing a random interval in that ordering.)

For each i, let Ixi+ be the interval {xi+1,xi+2,…,xi+r} and let Ixi− be the interval {xi−r+1,…,xi}.

PIC

Without loss of generality {x1,…,xr}∈A. Then any other interval in A must be Ixi+ or Ixi− for some i∈{1,…,r−1}. We can’t have both. So at most r−1 more intervals.

In the equality case, we must have equality for every cyclic ordering. In the above argument, we cannot have i with Ixi−∈A and Ixi+1+∈A. Therefore, if we have r sets, then there must exist t such that the intervals are Ix1+,…,Ixt−1+,Ixt−,…,Ixr−1−, together with {x1,…,xr}. So there exists t such that they all contain xt.

Now let us show that A={A∈[n](r):xt∈A}. Without loss of generality t=r so our intervals are {xi,…,xi+r−1} for i=1,2,…r. Let u=xn. Define a cyclic ordering that goes like this:

p1: u, thenp2: elements of {x1,…,xr−1}∖A, thenp3: elements of {x1,…,xr−1}∩A, thenp4: xr, thenp5: elements of A∖{x1,…,xr}, thenp6: the rest

In this cyclic ordering, {u}∪Iu+∖{xr}=(p1,p2,p3)={xn,x1,…,xr−1}∉A (sinc it is an interval in the other cyclic ordering). Next, note Iu+=(p2,p3,p4)={x1,…,xr}∈A. So by the property we have proved (that in any cyclic ordering we have r consecutive intervals), A=(p3,p4,p5)∈A since A is also an interval.

The proof is complete. □

Our aim now is to prove a theorem of Friedgut and Dinur that shows that if 0<p<12 and n is sufficiently large, then for every intersecting family A of sets of size pn, there exists a subset J⊂[n] and an intersecting family B⊂P(J) such that very few sets in A do not contain a set in B. “Very few” here means relative to npn (rather than being relative to |A|).

Note. In this section, Boolean functions are from {0,1}n to {0,1}, and the μp-biased measure gives probability p to xi=1 and q to xi=0.

Definition 7.2. A Boolean function f:{0,1}n→{0,1} is (𝜀,p,r)-quasirandom if for every J⊂[n] of size r, and every u∈{0,1}J,

|𝔼[f(p) | x|J=u]−𝔼f(p)(x)|≤𝜀.

Notation. Let f:{0,1}n→ℝ. Let J⊂[n] and let n∈{0,1}J.

Define fu:{0,1}[n]∖J→ℝ by fu(y)=f(x), where x|J=u, x|Jc=y.

Define the averaging projection EJ by EJf(p)(x)=𝔼fu(p), where u=x|J. Note that EJf depends only on the coordinates in J.

Lemma 7.3. Each EJ is an orthogonal projection, and if J⊂K, then EJEK=EJ.

Proof. Since (fu)u=fu, we have EJ2=EJ, so EJ is a projection. Now we would like to show that

⟨f−EJf,EJf⟩=0

for every f, or equivalently that ⟨f,EJf⟩=⟨EJf,EJf⟩. Since EJf=EJ2f, it is enough to prove that EJ is self-adjoint.

But

⟨EJf,g⟩=𝔼xEJf(x)g(x)=𝔼u∈{0,1}J𝔼y∈{0,1}Jc(𝔼fu)gu(y)=𝔼u(𝔼fu)𝔼ygu(y)=𝔼u(𝔼fu)(𝔼gu)=𝔼x𝔼Jf(x)𝔼Jg(x)=⟨EJf,EJg⟩=⟨f,EJg⟩(the last step by symmetry)

This proves that EJ is self-adjoint, which is interesting property, but we in fact we didn’t need to write down the last line in the calculation above if all we want to deduce is that ⟨f,EJf⟩=⟨EJf,EJf⟩.

Now let J⊂K and let L=K∖J. Write x=(u,v,z) where u∈{0,1}J, v∈{0,1}L, z∈{0,1}Kc. Then

EJEKf(x)=EJ(𝔼z∈Kcf(u,v,z))=𝔼v∈Lz∈Kcf(u,v,z)=EJf(x)□

Lemma 7.4 (Regularity lemma for Boolean functions). For every (𝜀,ρ,r,δ), there exists some T such that for every Boolean function f(p):{0,1}n→{0,1}, there exists J⊂[n] with |J|≤T such that if u is chosen randomly (μp randomly) from {0,1}J, then

ℙ[fu is (𝜀,ρ,r)-quasirandom]≥1−δ.

Example. Define f:{0,1}n→{0,1} randomly with

ℙ(f(x1,…,xn−1,0)=1)=13

and

ℙ(f(x1,…,xn−1,1)=1)=23.

Then f is not quasirandom, but the conclusion of the above lemma holds if we take J={n}.

Proof. For any J⊂[n], define the mean-square density of J to be ∥EJf∥22.. Note that if J⊂K, then

∥EJf∥22=∥EJEKf∥22≤∥EKf∥22.

Suppose now that J does not satisfy the conclusion of the lemma. Let u∈{0,1}J. Then for any K⊂[n]∖J, ∥EJfu∥22≥(𝔼fu)2. If fu is not (𝜀,ρr)-quasirandom, then there exists Ku⊂[n]∖J and some v∈{0,1}Ku such that

|𝔼fu,v(p)−𝔼fu(p)|≥𝜀.

Let ζ=min⁡{p,1−p}. Also, |Ku|≤r. If we choose a random element of {0,1}Ku, then it equals v with probability ≥ζr. Therefore,

𝔼w|𝔼fu,w(p)−𝔼fu(p)|2≥𝜀2ζr.

But

𝔼w𝔼fu,w=𝔼fu

so the LHS is Var⁡(𝔼fu,w−𝔼fu) so it equals

𝔼w(𝔼fu,w)2−(𝔼w𝔼fu,w)2=∥EKufu∥22−(𝔼fu)2.

So ∥𝔼Kufu∥22≥(𝔼fu)2+ζr𝜀2 in this case.

Let K=⋃⁡uKu. Then pnorm∥EKfu∥22≥(𝔼fu)2+ζr𝜀2 in this case.

Averaging over u, we deduce that

𝔼u∥EKfu∥22≥𝔼u(𝔼fu)2+δζr𝜀2,

i.e. ∥EJ∪Kf∥22≥∥EJf∥22+δζr𝜀2.

We can now do an iteration. Start with J0=∅. At i-th stage, if Ji doesn’t work, then replace it by Ji+1=Ji∪Ki, using the argument just given, with |Ki|≤r⋅2|Ji|. At each stage, mean square density goes up by at least δζr𝜀2, so the process must terminate in a bounded number of steps. □

Lemma 7.5. For every ζ,α>0 and p∈[ζ,12−ζ], there exists 𝜀>0 and r such that if f is an (𝜀,ρ,r)-quasirandom monotone Boolean function from {0,1}n to {0,1} with 𝔼f(p)=α, then 𝔼f(1∕2)>12.

Proof. Suppose that 𝔼f(1∕2)≤12. By the Mean Value Theorem, there exists s∈(p,12) such that

dds𝔼f(s)≤12−α12−p≤1ζ.

By the main corollary to the The Margulis–Russo formula (Corollary 6.10), it follows that I(f(s))≤1ζ. By the p-biased Friedgut junta theorem, we can find a Boolean J-junta h such that ℙ[f(s)≠h(s)]≤𝜀 and |J|≤r(ζ,𝜀).

But 𝔼f(s)≤𝔼f(1∕2) by monotonicity, so ℙ[f(s)=1]≤12 ⟹ ℙ[h(s)=1]≤12+𝜀≤34 (as long as 𝜀≤14) ⟹ ℙ[h(s)=0]≥14. Therefore ℙ[f(s)=1|h(s)=0]≤4𝜀. Therefore, there exists u such that hu≡0 and ℙ[fu(s)=1]≤4𝜀. By monotonicity, ℙ[fu(p)=1]=𝔼fu(p)≤4𝜀, so choosing 𝜀<α5, we have that

|𝔼fu(p)−𝔼f(p)|>𝜀,

contradicting (𝜀,ρ,r)-quasirandom, where r=r(ζ,𝜀). □

Notation. Let B be a family of subsets of [n]. Write B¯={A⊂[n]:∃⁡B∈B,B⊂A}, the upward closure of B.

Theorem 7.6 (Dinur, Friedgut). For every p∈(0,12) and 𝜀>0, there exists T such that for every intersecting family A of subsets of [n] there exists J⊂[n] of size at most T and an intersecting family B of subsets of J such that

μp(A∖B¯)≤𝜀.

Proof. It is convenient to reformulate the statement in terms of Boolean functions. So call f:{0,1}n→{0,1} intersecting if for all x,y, f(x)=f(y)=1⟹∃⁡i,xi=yi=1.

Let f:{0,1}n→{0,1} be a Boolean function and apply the regularity lemma with parameters (𝜀10,p,r,𝜀2), where r is to be chosen. That gives us J of size at most T(𝜀,p,r) such that if u is chosen μp-randomly from {0,1}J, then

ℙ[fu(p) is not (𝜀10,p,r)-quasirandom]≤𝜀2.

Define g:{0,1}J→{0,1} by setting g(u)=1 if fu(p) is (𝜀10,p,r)-quasirandom, and 𝔼fu(p)≥𝜀2 and 0 otherwise. Then

ℙ[f(p)(x)=1 and g(x|J)=0]≤𝜀2+𝜀2.

(This corresponds to the statement that |A∖B¯|≤𝜀. A={A:f(𝟙A)=1}, B={B:g(𝟙B)=1}.)

Note that A¯ is an intersecting family and |A¯∖B¯|≥|A∖B|, so we may assume that f is monotone, and hence that each fu is monotone. It remains to prove that g is intersecting. Let u,v∈{0,1}J such that g(u)=g(v)=1. Then fu and fv are (𝜀10,p,r)-quasirandom and 𝔼fu(p),𝔼fv(p)≥𝜀2. By Lemma 7.5 for appropriate r, it follows that 𝔼fu(1∕2),𝔼fv(1∕2)>12.

By averaging, we can find y,z∈{0,1}[n]∖J such that yi=1⟺zi=0 and fu(y)=fv(z))=1. Since f is intersecting, there must exist j such that ui=vj=1, so g is intersecting. □

Lemma 7.7 (The LYM inequality). Let 1≤r<s≤n and let A⊂[n](r). Write ∂sA for {B∈[n](s):∃⁡A∈A,A⊂B}. Then |∂sA|ns≥|A|nr.

Proof. Let α=|A|nr and β=|∂sA|ns. Define a bipartite graph by joining A∈[n](r) to B∈[n](s) if and only if A⊂B. Now pick a random edge. The probability that it joins A to ∂sA is exactly α. It is also at most β. So α=ℙ[joins A to ∂sA]≤β. □

Definition 7.8 (Modified upper shadow). Let n∈ℕ, let J⊂[n], let r<s and let A⊂[n](r). Define the modified upper shadow ∂JsA to be {B∈[n](s):A⊂B,(B∖A)∩J=∅}.

Lemma 7.9. Let n,r,s,J,A be as above. Let α=|A|nr and β=|∂JsA|ns. Assume that r≤n2. Then

β≥α(1−2|J|n)s−r.

Proof. Pick a random pair (A,B) with A∈[n](r), B∈[n](s), A⊂B. Then

ℙ[(A,B)∈A×∂JsA]≥α(1−2|J|n)s−r.

Also, the probability is at most β. The result follows. □

Corollary 7.10. For every p∈(0,12), 𝜀>0, there exists m such that for every n∈ℕ and every intersecting family A⊂[n](r) where r=pn, there exists J⊂[n], |J|≤m, and an intersecting family B of subsets of J such that |A∖B¯|≤𝜀nr.

Proof. Suppose not. Let C=hacal∖B¯. Then C has density ≥𝜀. Apply the Dinur, Friedgut Theorem to A to obtain J and an intersecting family B of subsets of J with μp(A¯∖B¯)≤𝜀4.

Note that since C∩B¯=∅, ∂JsC∩B¯=∅ for every s>r. Also, if s≤r+n2∕3, then

|∂JsC|ns≥𝜀(1−2|J|n)n2∕3≥𝜀(1−2|J|n1∕3)≥3𝜀4,

for n sufficiently large.

But (by law of total probability),

μp(C¯)=∑s≥rμp([n](s))⋅[|∂JsC|ns]≥3𝜀4∑r≤s≤r+n2∕3μp([n](s))≥3𝜀4(1−o(1))≥5𝜀16.

But C¯⊂A¯∖B¯, so this is a contradiction. □