Probabilistic Combinatorics
Lectured by Julian Sahasrabudhe

Contents

1Introduction
1.1Binomial Random Graph
1.2Topics in this course
1.3Brief introduction to R(k)
2The Ramsey numbers R(3,k)
2.1Lovasz-Erdős Local Lemma
2.2Upper bounds on R(3,k)
Index

1 Introduction

The course is Probabilistic Combinatorics, being lectured by

Julian Sa⏟has⏟ra⏟bu⏟dhe⏟“day″ ⁡

We will be studying in particular the Ramsey numbers. Starting with the simplest to define:

R(k) = min ⁡ {n : every red/blue colouring of E(Kn) contains a monochromatic Kn}.

Example. R(3) ≤ 6: pick a vertex. Without loss of generality say it has at least 3 red neighbours. If any of these are connected by a red edge, then we get a red triangle by using the original vertex. If none of them are connected by a red edge, then we get a blue triangle between them.

PIC

R(3) > 5: by considering the following picture.

PIC

Thus R(3) = 6.

Main question: how fast does R(k) →∞ as k →∞?

We will also study:

R(l,k) = min ⁡ {n : every red/blue colouring of E(Kn) contains either a blue Kl or a red Kk}.

For a fixed graph H, we define

R(H) = min ⁡ {n : every red/blue colouring of E(Kn) contains a monochromatic H}.

Example. R(k) = R(Kk).

For H a fixed graph, we define

ex ⁡ (n,H) = max ⁡ {e(G) : G is a graph on n vertices and G⁄ ⊃ H}.

Example. Mantel’s Theorem says that

ex ⁡ (n,K3) = ⌊n2 4 ⌋.

PIC

1.1 Binomial Random Graph

Definition 1.1 (Binomial random graph). Given n ∈ ℕ, p ∈ (0,1), the binomial random graph G(n,p) is the probability space defined on all graphs on n vertices, where each edge is included independently with probability p.

1.2 Topics in this course

1.3 Brief introduction to R(k)

Theorem (Erdos-Szekeres, ’35). R(k) ≤ 4k.

Proof sketch. Let n ≥ 4k and let χ be a colouring of Kn. Pick a vertex v. It must have ≥ 1 2n neighbours connected to it by the same colour.

PIC

Now ignore everything that was connected using the other colour. Pick a new vertex from what remains, and apply the process again:

PIC

We continue until either A or B gets to size k. We basically just want

n (1 2 )k (1 2 )k ≥ 1,

i.e. n ≥ 4k. □

How about a lower bound?

Example.

PIC

This gives R(k) ≥ (k − 1)2 + 1. Quite a long way from 4k!

Theorem (Erdos, ’47). R(k) ≥ (1 − o(1)) k 2 e2k∕2.

Notation. o(1) denotes a quantity that → 0 as k →∞.

Proof. Let n = (1 − o(1)) k 2 eek∕2 we choose χ to be a random colouring of E(Kn) where the colour of each edge is chosen red / blue uniformly and independently. We have

ℙ(χ has a monochromatic Kk) = ℙ (⋃ K∈[n](k){K is a monochromatic clique}) ≤ 2n k 2−k 2 ≤ 2 (en k )k2−k 2 = (en k 2(k−1 2 ) ) < 1

by the choice of n. □

Big question: Is there an “explicit” construction that gives R(k) ≥ (1 + 𝜀)k, for some fixed 𝜀 > 0?

2 The Ramsey numbers R(3,k)

Theorem (Erdos-Szekeres, 1935). R(l,k) ≤ k+l−2 l−1 .

Proof. Induction. See e.g. GT. □

Note. R(k) = R(k,k) ≤ 2(k−1) k−1 ∼ c 4k k.

Corollary. R(3,k) ≤ k2.

Idea 1: If randomly colour Kn, we have ∼ 1 8 n 3 triangles ⇝ :(

Idea 2: We want to bias our distribution in favour of Kk – colour “red”. Say G ∼ G(n,p). Sad news: if p ≫ 1 n then G contains a K3 with high probability. ⇝ :(

Theorem (Erdos, 1960s). R(3,k) ≥ c ( k log⁡k ) 3∕2 for some c > 0.

Proof sketch. Sample G ∼ G(n,p), then define G~ = G − (a vertex from each triangle). For this to work we need #vertices 2 > #triangles. So n 2 > p3n 3 . So take p ∼ n−2∕3. □

Remark. This is called the “deletion method”.

Fact (Markov). Let X be a non-negative random variable. Let t > 0. Then

ℙ(X ≥ t) ≤ 𝔼X t .

That is

ℙ(X ≥ s𝔼X) ≤ 1 s,

for any s > 0.

Fact. For 1 ≤ k ≤ n we have

n k ≤ (en k )k

and

n k ≥ (n k )k.

Definition 2.1 (Independence number). Let G be a graph. Then I ⊂ V (G) is independent if x⁄ ∼ y in G for all x,y ∈ I.

We use α(G) = size of the largest independent set.

PIC

Note. We are trying to construct a triangle free graph on k3∕2−o(1) vertices with α(G) < k.

Lemma 2.2. Assuming that:

  • 1 n ≪ p ≤ 1 2

  • G ∼ G(n,p)

Then
α (G) ≤ (2 + o(1))log⁡np p ,

with probability tending to 1 as n →∞ (known as “with high probability (w.h.p.)”).

Remark. We actually have = in this lemma.

Proof. Let k = (2 + δ)log⁡np p , for some δ > 0. Let X be the random variable that counts the number of independent k sets in G.

𝔼X = 𝔼 ∑ I∈[n](k)𝟙I is independent = ∑ I∈[n](k)ℙ(I is independent) = n k (1 − p)k 2 ≤ (en k )ke−pk 2 ≤ (en k ⋅ e−(k−1 2 )p) k → 0

by plugging in k. So by Markov

ℙ(X ≥ 1) ≤ 𝔼X → 0.□

We have a method for bounding the probability that X is large: Markov says that ℙ(X > t) ≤ 𝔼X t . What about bounding the probability that it is small?

Fact: Let X be a random variable with 𝔼X, Var ⁡ X finite. Then for all t > 0,

ℙ(|X − 𝔼X|≥ t) ≤ Var ⁡ X t2 .

Reminder:

Var ⁡ X = 𝔼X2 − (𝔼X)2 = 𝔼(X − 𝔼X)2.

Lemma 2.3. Assuming that:

  • 1 n ≪ p ≤ 1

  • G ∼ G(n,p)

Then
#triangles in G = (1 + o(1))p3n 3

with high probability.

Proof. Let X be the random variable counting the number of triangles in G. Note

X = ∑ T∈[n](3)𝟙T(2) ⊂ G.

Mean is straightforward:

𝔼X = p3n 3 .

Variance is a little more tricky. First:

X2 = ∑ S,T∈[n](3)𝟙S(2),T(2) ⊂ G.

We can write

𝔼X2 = ∑ S,T∈[n](2)ℙ(T(2),S(2) ⊂ G) (𝔼X)2 = ∑ S,T∈[n](2)ℙ(T(2) ⊂ G)ℙ(S(2) ⊂ G)

Since the pairs of events are independent whenever |S(2) ∩ T(2)| = 0, we have

PIC

Var ⁡ X ≤∑ S,T∈[n](2) |S(2)∩T(2)|=1 ≤ p5n4 + 𝔼X Now note ℙ(|X − 𝔼X|≥ δ𝔼X) ≤ Var ⁡ X δ2(𝔼X)2 ≤ p5n4 δ2(𝔼X)2 + 1 δ2𝔼X ≤ C p5n4 (n3p3)2 + 1 δ2𝔼X ≤ C 1 n2p + 1 δ2𝔼X → 0 □

Recall that before we showed that for G ∼ G(n,p), 1 n ≪ p ≤ 1 2, we have

α (G) ≤ (2 + o(1))log⁡(np) p

with high probability.

Proof of lower bound on R(3,k). Set n = ( k log⁡k ) 3∕2, p = n−2∕3. Let G ∼ G(n,p) and let G~ with a vertex deleted from each triangle. Then with high probability we have

α(G~) ≤α(G) ≤ (2 + o(1))log⁡np p ≤ (2 3 + o(1))n2∕3 log⁡n ≤ (2 3 + o(1)) k log⁡k(log⁡k3∕2) ≤ (1 + o(1))k (∗) 

We also have with high probability:

|V (G~)| ≥ n − (#of triangles in G) ≥ n − (1 + o(1))p3n3 6 = n − (1 + o(1))n 6 ≥ n 2 ( ∗ ∗) 

So with high probability (∗) and ( ∗∗) hold. So there must exist a graph G~ on n 2 = 1 2 ( k log⁡k ) 3∕2 with no triangles and independence number < k (actually not quite, but would have worked if we multiply one of the parameters by a constant or something). □

Definition (Chromatic number). Let G be a graph. The chromatic number of G is the minimum k such that there exists χ : V (G) → [k]such that no edge has both ends in the same colour.

PIC

χ(G) denotes the chromatic number.

Similar to the above lower bound on R(3,k), Erdős proved:

Theorem (Erdős). There exist graphs G with arbitrarily large chromatic number and arbitrarily large girth, i.e. for all g,k ∈ ℕ there exists G with girth > g and χ(G) > k.

PIC

Idea: let’s delete an edge from each triangle, instead of a vertex (we have a lot more edges to spend than we have vertices!).

For this we need

p3n3 ≪ pn2

so p = γ n. For some small γ > 0.

Danger: when we delete an edge from each triangle, we need to ensure that we don’t hurt α(G).

Theorem 2.4 (Erdos, 1960s). R(3,k) ≥ c k2 (log⁡ k)2 for some c > 0.

To prove this, it is enough to prove for sufficiently large n that there exists a triangle free graph on n vertices with

α (G) ≤ Cn1 2 log⁡n

for some C > 0.

This is because we can set k = Cnlog⁡n, and then get n = c k2 (log⁡ k)2 .

More sketching of the idea: we know α(G) ≤ 2log⁡n p .

What if k > 2log⁡np p ? Then there must be an edge (because α(G) < k.

PIC

Not very impressive.

What if k > 100log⁡np p ? Then we actually get a lot of edges: expect pk2, and can guarantee pk2 16.

Lemma 2.5. Assuming that:

  • 1 n ≪ p ≤ 1 2

  • G ∼ G(n,p)

  • k > Clog⁡n p

Then with high probability every set of size ≥ k in G induces pk2 16 edges.

Proof. Fix t = pk2 16 and fix a set S with size |S| = k.

ℙ(e(G[S]) < t) ≤∑ i=0t k 2 i pi(1 − p)k 2 −i ≤ t k 2 t pt(1 − p)k 2 −t ≤ t [(ek2 2t )tpt] e−p[k 2 −t] ≤ t(e8) pk2 16 e−pk 2 ∕2 ≤ k2 [(e8)1e−4+o(1)] pk2 16 ≤ e−αpk2

for some α > 0.

We now union bound on all S ∈ [n](k).

ℙ(∃ ⁡S ∈ [n](k) such that e([S]) < t) ≤ n k ℙ(e(G[S]) < t) ≤ (en k )ke−αk2p = (en k ⋅ e−αkp) k ≤ (enp ( 1 pn )αC) k

(using kp ≥ Clog⁡n) which → 0 for C > 1 α. □

Lemma 2.6. Assuming that:

  • F = {Ai}i be a collection of events

  • Et, for t ∈ ℕ, be the event that t independent events of F occur

Then
ℙ(Et) ≤ 1 t! (∑ iℙ(Ai))t.

PIC

Remark. t! = tte−t 2πt(1 + o(1)).

We will use t! ≥ tte−t∕2 for large t in the above lemma to get:

ℙ(Et) ≤ 2 (e𝔼(# of Ai that hold t )t.

Proof. Let I = {(Ai1,…,Aik) : Ai1,…,Aik are independent}.

𝟙Et ≤ 1 t!∑ (Ai 1,…,Aik∈I𝟙Ai1 ∩⋯ ∩ Aik ℙ(Et) ≤∑ (Ai 1,…,Aik)∈Iℙ(Ai1 ∩⋯ ∩ Aik) ≤ 1 t!∑ i1,…,itℙ(Ai1)⋯ℙ(Aik) = 1 t! (∑ iℙ(Ai))t□

Theorem. Assuming that:

  • n ≥ 2

Then there exists a triangle-free graph G on n vertices with
α (G) ≤ C nlog⁡n.

Proof. Let n be large. Let p = γ n for some γ > 0. Let G ∼ G(n,p), and let G~ be G with a maximal collection of edge disjoint triangles T removed, i.e. G~ = G − T.

Clearly G~ is triangle-free. We let Q be the event that every set of size k, where k = Cnlog⁡n contains at least pk2 16 edges. We now consider

ℙ(α(G~) ≥ k) = ℙ(α(G~) ≥ k ∩Q) + ℙ(α(G~) ≥ k ∩Qc).

So

ℙ(α(G~) ≥ k) ≤ ℙ(α(G~) ≥ k ∩Q)⏟(∗) + o(1).

We now union-bound

(∗) ≤ n k ℙ(I independent in G~ ∩Q) = n k ℙ(T intersects I in  ≥ pk2 16 edges)

PIC

Define {Ti} to be the collection of all triangles that meet I in at least one edge, and define the event Ai = {Ti ⊂ G}.

Note that the event Et, where t = pk2 16, from the lemma holds on the event that T meets I in pk2 16 edges. This is where we use the fact that we only choose edge-disjoint triangles! By Lemma 2.6, we have

ℙ(Et) ≤ 2 (ek2np3 t )t ≤ (16ek2np3 pk2 ) pk2 16 = (16eγ2)pk2 16

So

(∗) ≤ (16eγ2)pk2 16 ( en k )k → 0,

if γ is chosen to be small and C large. □

2.1 Lovasz-Erdős Local Lemma

Lemma 2.7 (Erdos-Lovasz, 70s). Assuming that:

  • F = {Ai} is a family of events in a probability space

  • ℙ(Ai) ≤ 1 e(Δ+1), where Δ = Δ(G) is the max degree of G

Then
ℙ (⋂ iAic) > 0.

Definition 2.8 (Dependency graph). If F = {Ai} is a family of events, a dependency graph G is a graph with vertex set F, with the property that: for all i, the event Ai is independent from {Aj : Aj⁄ ∼ Ai}.

Picture:

PIC

Reminder: Ai is independent from {Aj : Aj⁄ ∼ Ai} if E is formed by taking intersections of Aj,Ajc⁄ ∼ Ai, we have

ℙ(Ai ∩ E) = ℙ(Ai)ℙ(E).

Theorem (Spencer). R(k) ≥ (1 + o(1)) 2k e 2k∕2.

Proof. Let δ > 0 and let n = (1 − δ) 2k e 2k∕2. Choose a colouring uniformly at random. For every S ∈ [n](k), define the event

AS = “S(2) are monochromatic”.

We clearly have ℙ(AS) = 2−k 2 +1.

Let G be the dependency graph on {AS}S where AS ∼ AT if S(2) ∩ T(2)≠∅.

Δ = Δ(G) ≤ k 2 ⋅n − 2 k − 2 ≤ k4 ⋅( 1 n2 ) n k

We now check:

Δ ⋅ 2−k 2 +1 ≤ 2k4 ( 1 n2 ) ( en k )k2−k 2 = [(1 + o(1)) 1 n2∕k ( enn k ⋅ 2−k∕2)] k.

This → 0. So the condition in Local Lemma holds for sufficiently large k. □

Remark. This is the best known lower bound for diagonal Ramsey.

Definition 2.9 (k-uniform hypergraph). Say H is a k-uniform hypergraph on vertex set X if H ⊂ X(k).

Definition 2.10 (Colourable k-uniform hypergraph). Say a k-uniform hypergraph is 2-colourable if there exists χ : X →{red,blue} such that there is no monochromatic e ∈H.

PIC

Theorem 2.11. Assuming that:

Then H is 2-colourable.

Proof. We choose our colouring of the ground set X uniformly at random. For each e ∈H, define the event

Ae = “e monochromatic”.

We have ℙ(Ee) = 2−k+1. We want 2−k+1 ≤ 1 e(Δ+1). Note if we define our dependency graph G by Ae ∼ Af if e ∩ f≠∅, then

Δ(G) ≤ d ⋅ k.

Now just use the bound on d in the hypothesis. □

Remark. Actually, our second application implies the first on R(k): just let H be the k 2 -uniform hypergraph on X = [n](2), defined by

H = {S(2) : S ∈ [n](k)}.

Theorem 2.12 (Lopsided Local Lemma). Assuming that:

  • F = {Ai} a family of events

  • x1,…,xn ∈ (0,1) be such that ∀ ⁡i,

    ℙ(Ai) ≤ xi ∏ Ai∼Aj(1 − xj)

    (where Ai ∼ Aj denotes adjacency in the dependency graph).

Then
ℙ (⋂ i=1nA ic) ≥∏ i=1n(1 − x i).

Proof. We use

ℙ(A ∩ B) = ℙ(A|B)ℙ(B).

Applying this many times, we have

ℙ (⋂ i=1nA ic) = ∏ i=1nℙ(A ic|A 1c ∩⋯ ∩ A i−1c) = ∏ i=1n(1 − ℙ(A i|A1c ∩⋯ ∩ A i−1c)⏟ ≤xi?)

We will prove that this term is ≤ xi by instead proving the more general statement:

(∗) = ℙ (Ai | ⋂ j∈SAjc) ≤ x i,

where S ⊂ [n] ∖{j}. We prove by induction on |S|.

If S = ∅, then done by hypothesis.

If S≠∅, then define

D = ⋂ j∈S j∼i Ajc,I = ⋂ j∈Sj⁄∼iAjc.

Note that

(∗) = ℙ(Ai|D ∩ I) = ℙ(Ai ∩ D ∩ I) ℙ(D ∩ I) ≤ ℙ(Ai ∩ I) ℙ(D ∩ I) = ℙ(Ai)ℙ(I) ℙ(D ∩ I) = ℙ(Ai) ℙ(D|I)

Let {Ai1,…,Ais} be the events in the intersection D. Then

ℙ(D|I) = ∏ j=1sℙ(A ijc|I ∩ A i1c ∩⋯ ∩ A ij−1c) = ∏ j=1s(1 − ℙ(A ij|I ∩ Ai1c ∩⋯ ∩ A ij−1c))

If no events in the intersection, then we are already done. Otherwise, we may apply the induction hypothesis to each term to get

ℙ(Ai) ℙ(D|I) ≤ xi ∏ j∼i(1 − xj) ∏ j=1s(1 − xij) ≤ xi.□

Proof of Local Lemma. Apply Lopsided Local Lemma with weights xi = 1 Δ+1 for all i. We just need to check that the probability upper bounds in Lopsided Local Lemma hold.

By calculus, we have

( Δ Δ + 1 )Δ ≥ 1 e.

Hence

ℙ(Ai) ≤ 1 e(Δ + 1) ≤ 1 Δ + 1 ( Δ Δ + 1 )Δ = 1 Δ + 1 (1 − 1 Δ + 1 )Δ ≤ 1 Δ + 1∏ Ai∼Aj (1 − 1 Δ + 1 )□

Now we will see another proof of R(3,k) ≥ c k2 (log⁡ k)2 , in order to give some intuition as to what kind of situations are good for Local Lemma.

Proof of R(3,k) ≥ c k2 (log⁡ k)2 using Local Lemma. Recall that it is enough to show that for sufficiently large n, there exists a triangle -free graph on n vertices with α(G) ≤ Cnlog⁡n.

Set k = Cnlog⁡n, and sample G ∼ G(n,p) where p = γ n, with γ > 0 is chosen later.

Define the events:

Define the dependency graph G:

Now note:

PIC

We choose xT = 2p3 for all T ∈ [n](3) (“we want to make it a bit bigger than the probability of it occuring so that we can afford the product stuff”) and xI = n−10k for all I ∈ [n](k).

Then

xT ∏ S∈[n](3) T∼S (1 − xS)∏ I∈[n](k) I∼T (1 − xI) ≥ 2p3(1 − 2p3)3n(1 − n−10k)3nk−2 ≥ 2p3 exp⁡(−(1 + o(1))[2p3(3n) + 3n−10knk−2]) = 2p3(1 + o(1)) ≥ p3

for large enough n. We have ℙ(BI) = (1 − p)k 2 ≤ e−pk 2 , so

xI(1 − 2p3)k2n (1 − n−10k)k2nk−2 ≥ n−10k exp⁡(−(1 + o(1))[2p3k2n + n−10kk2nk−2]) = n−10k exp⁡(−(1 + o(1))(2γ2)pk2)

Note

e−pk 2 = exp⁡ (− γ nkC n(log⁡n)) = n−γCk.

First choose γ small so e−2γ2pk ≫ e−pk 2 1 2 , and then choose C ≫ 1 γ, then done. □

2.2 Upper bounds on R(3,k)

Theorem 2.13 (Ajtai-Komlos-Szemeredi, 1980s + Shearer 80s). R(3,k) ≤ (1 + o(1)) k2 log⁡ k.

Theorem 2.14 (Shearer, 1980s). Assuming that:

  • G a triangle-free graph on n vertices

  • max degree d

Then
α (G) ≥ (1 + o(1))n d(log⁡d),

where o(1) → 0 as d →∞.

Remark. If we take G ∼ G (n, d n ) and modify, for d ≪n, one can show that there exist graphs with no triangles and

α (G) ≤ (2 + o(1))n dlog⁡d.

˙

Index

2-colourable

dependency graph

independent

k-uniform hypergraph

Local Lemma