6 Dependent Random Choice
Definition 6.1 (-rich).
Let be a graph.
Say that is
-rich if for
every
we have
Theorem 6.2 (Dependent Random Choice).
Assuming that:
Then there exists
,
which
is
-rich.
Proof.
We sample
uniformly at random (with replacement). Then
𝟙
Let be the random variable
that counts the number of
with
Then
|
𝟙 |
so
To finish, define to
be with a vertex
deleted from each
with .
Thus by assumption, we have
Definition 6.3 (Extremal number).
Let
be a graph. The extremal numbers of
are
|
|
Theorem 6.4 (Erdős-Stone).
Assuming that:
Then |
|
Definition 6.5 (Complete bipartite graph).
is
the complete bipartite graph with parts of sizse ,
respectively.
Erdős-Stone doesn’t help us when .
In this case, it is known that
|
|
Theorem 6.6 (Füredi).
Assuming that:
Then
for some
( depends
only on and
not on ).
Lemma 6.7.
Assuming that:
Then .
Proof.
First inject .
We now inductively place the vertices .
Assume we have embedded
into .
To embed ,
simply consider the .
These have been embedded inside of
and thus have
common neighbours. So there must be a choice for
that does not clash with the previous choices. □
Proof of Füredi.
Given ,
, we choose
, and want to show
. By lemma, enough
to find a -rich
set of size .
Let and
.
Then
as desired. □
Definition 6.8 (Hypercube graph).
denotes the hypercube graph: the graph with
and
are adjacent if they differ in exactly one coordinate.
Proof.
Let
and let be a
colouring of . Let
be the graph of the majority
colour. So . So we apply Dependent
Random Choice to find a -rich
set of size .
If ,
then
Then can finish using Lemma 6.7. □
Remark.
One can use this proof to get
Burr-Erdős conjectured that .
State of the art:
by Tikhomirov 2023.
Say I have a graph ,
with max degree
where fixed
and .
Then it is known that
Proposition 6.10.
Assuming that:
Remark.
To improve this to get the bound ,
one idea might be to find a -rich
set where
(), where the
rich set has size
on
vertices.
Proposition 6.11.
There exists a graph
with edges so that
every set of size
contains some
with
common neighbours.
Definition 6.12 (Approximately -rich).
Let be a
graph. Say is
approximately -rich
if
|
|
Here we use the notation
|
|
Lemma 6.13.
Assuming that:
Then .
Lemma 6.14.
Assuming that:
Theorem 6.15 (Fox, Sudakov, Conlon).
Assuming that:
Remark.
This also improves our bound on :
Proof of Lemma 6.13.
For ,
, let
|
|
Say that is
healthy if
|
|
Observation: If is
healthy, then the number of
such that is not
healthy is .
Proof of observation:
|
|
Let .
Then
But if , I
contradict that
is healthy. So we have proved the observation.
We now inject inductively.
Assume we have embedded
so far. We assume that we have
is healthy for all . We
now embed . ulet
be the neighbour
of . We know
are healthy, so there are
at most (by observation)
ways of choosing
so that one of the neighbours becomes unhealthy. But there are only
neighbours. So there are
choices that maintain all
healthy neighbours. Since ,
I can map
to a new vertex.
We now inject
exactly as we saw in the proof of Lemma 6.7. □
Proof of Lemma 6.14.
Let
be chosen uniformly at random. Let .
Let .
We have .
Let .
. Now
note
|
|
So there is a
such that
So .
|
|
Theorem 6.16.
There exists a constant
such that
for all bipartite graphs
on vertices with
max degree .
Theorem 6.17 (Graham, Rödl, Ruciński).
Assuming that:
Then there exists a constant
depending only on
,
such that
We will show
for some absolute constant .
Remark.
There exists
such that ,
for .
This is also “almost” the best bound known on these Ramsey numbers. The best bound is
which was proved by Fox, Conlon, Sudakov.
Definition 6.18 ((p,eps)-dense).
Say that a graph
on
vertices
is -dense
if ,
, we
have
Lemma 6.19 (Embedding lemma for -dense graphs).
Assuming that:
Then .
Sketch of how to use embedding lemma: Apply lots of times, with say
. Get
lots of parts, with high density between all. Then can just greedily embed.
Lemma 6.20.
Assuming that:
Then .
Observation: Let
be a -dense
graph, and let
with and
. Then there
exists
such that
for all .
Proof.
Let .
Note
Hence
for all .
So we must have
Proof of Embedding lemma for -dense graphs.
Let . We
inductively map ,
. At each stage we maintain a
set of candidates for each .
In particular,
|
|
meaning after we have embedded ,
…, , we maintain that
after embedding
we have
We also require
where .
Say at step ,
I have mapped
preserving adjacencies and preserving ()
and ().
We now choose .
We want to choose .
Note
Let and
note
Now apply the observation with
and , where
, to find a
vertex
such that
|
|
and similarly up to
|
|
as desired. □
Proof of Lemma 6.20.
Greedily embed
into . This is possible,
because when we embed ,
there are at least
many possible options (a lot!). □
Lemma 6.21.
Assuming that:
-
,
-
a graph with no
-dense
subgraph on
vertices
Then there exists
with
and
Proof.
We work by induction on .
For :
trivial, can just take .
Assume holds for .
Let
such that
where ,
because
is not -dense.
If then
let , so
|
|
Throw away vertices of degree
and we delete at most
of .
Call the resulting set ,
which is our desired set.
So we can assume that .
So we work with
and .
Fact: If I have a bipartite graph
with partition
and , then
there exists
with so
that
for all .
Proof: Let
chosen uniformly at random. Then
|
|
So put
Let be
such that
and .
Now apply induction inside of
to find
with
and
Now consider the bipartite graph between
and .
Note
So apply fact to find
with and
. Now apply
induction inside of
to get
satisfying the induction hypothesis.
Set . We now check the max
degree condition. Let and
without loss of generality assume .
|
|
Then
as desired. □