Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

Setting (p. 5). An ℓ\ell-graph on [N][N] is HH-free if it has no subgraph isomorphic to HH. For an ℓ\ell-graph HH with e(H)≥2e(H)\ge2 (Definition 2.2),

m(H)=max⁡H′⊂H, e(H′)>1e(H′)−1v(H′)−ℓ.m(H)=\max_{H'\subset H,\,e(H')>1}\frac{e(H')-1}{v(H')-\ell}.

ex(N,H)\mathrm{ex}(N,H) is the largest number of edges of an HH-free ℓ\ell-graph of order NN, and π(H)=lim⁡N→∞ex(N,H)(Nℓ)−1\pi(H)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\mathrm{ex}(N,H)\binom N\ell^{-1}. In the theorem ⊂\subset means "is a subgraph of".

Theorem 2.3 (p. 5). Let HH be an ℓ\ell-graph with e(H)≥2e(H)\ge2 and let ϵ>0\epsilon>0. There is c>0c>0 such that for every N≥cN\ge c some collection C\mathcal C of ℓ\ell-graphs on vertex set [N][N] satisfies

  • (a) every HH-free ℓ\ell-graph II on [N][N] has some C∈CC\in\mathcal C with I⊂CI\subset C;
  • (b) every C∈CC\in\mathcal C contains at most ϵNv(H)\epsilon N^{v(H)} copies of HH and has e(C)≤(π(H)+ϵ)(Nℓ)e(C)\le(\pi(H)+\epsilon)\binom N\ell;
  • (c) log⁡∣C∣≤cNℓ−1/m(H)log⁡N\log|\mathcal C|\le cN^{\ell-1/m(H)}\log N;
  • (d) for every II as in (a) there is T=(T1,…,Ts)T=(T_1,\ldots,T_s) with Ti⊂IT_i\subset I, s≤cs\le c and ∑ie(Ti)≤cNℓ−1/m(H)\sum_ie(T_i)\le cN^{\ell-1/m(H)}, such that C=C(T)C=C(T), that is, the container of II is determined by TT.

Remarks (pp. 5--6, 10). The paper explains that (d) implies (c) and is kept because in Lemma 10.3 it removes the log⁡N\log N factor. It describes the theorem as more or less best possible, an improvement of (c) being ruled out by the known optimality of the range of pp in its sparse Turán theorem, Theorem 2.12. The paper derives from Theorem 2.3 the count 2(π(H)+o(1))(Nℓ)2^{(\pi(H)+o(1))\binom N\ell} of HH-free ℓ\ell-graphs on [N][N] (Corollary 2.4, p. 6), the sparse random Turán theorem (Theorem 2.12, p. 10), and, through its strengthening Theorem 9.2, a counting version of the KŁR conjecture (Section 10).

Source. David Saxton and Andrew Thomason, Hypergraph containers, Invent. Math. 201 (2015), 925--992; arXiv:1204.6595. Labels and pages here are those of arXiv:1204.6595v3: Definition 2.2 and Theorem 2.3 on p. 5, Theorem 9.2 and the deduction on p. 39, the proof of Theorem 9.2 on p. 40 (Section 9, pp. 38--42). The edition read is identified on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the definitions and the statement were read clause by clause on the printed pages. The proof was read but not checked step by step.

Proof pointer

Pages 38--40. Let G(N,H)G(N,H) be the e(H)e(H)-graph whose vertices are the ℓ\ell-sets of [N][N] and whose edges are the e(H)e(H)-sets forming a copy of HH (Definition 9.1, p. 38); its independent sets are the HH-free ℓ\ell-graphs on [N][N]. Theorem 2.3 is Theorem 9.2 (p. 39) with G~=G(N,H)\widetilde G=G(N,H) and q=N−1/m(H)q=N^{-1/m(H)}. Theorem 9.2 is proved (p. 40) by applying Corollary 3.6 with τ=c q\tau=\sqrt c\,q: Lemma 9.3 (p. 39) bounds the co-degree function of G(N,H)G(N,H) at this τ\tau, and the Erdős--Simonovits supersaturation theorem (Proposition 9.4, p. 40) turns few copies of HH into the edge bound in (b).

Dependencies

Corollary 3.6 (p. 14); Theorem 9.2 and Lemma 9.3 (p. 39); Proposition 9.4 (Erdős and Simonovits, p. 40).

Bears on

No Erdős problem is linked from this result.