Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Source: published version, p. 235, Theorem 1.1; derivation from Theorem 1.4 on p. 238.

Statement

Let XX be a finite set and let F⊆2X\mathcal F\subseteq 2^X be a nonempty, proper increasing family. Define its threshold pc(F)p_c(\mathcal F) by

μpc(F)(F)=12.\mu_{p_c(\mathcal F)}(\mathcal F)=\frac12.

Let q(F)q(\mathcal F) be the largest p∈[0,1]p\in[0,1] for which there is a family G⊆2X\mathcal G\subseteq2^X satisfying

F⊆⟨G⟩,∑S∈Gp∣S∣≤12.\mathcal F\subseteq\langle\mathcal G\rangle, \qquad \sum_{S\in\mathcal G}p^{|S|}\le\frac12.

If ℓ0(F)\ell_0(\mathcal F) is the largest size of a minimal member of F\mathcal F, put ℓ(F)=max⁡{2,ℓ0(F)}\ell(\mathcal F)=\max\{2,\ell_0(\mathcal F)\}. There is a universal constant KK such that

pc(F)≤Kq(F)log⁡ℓ(F).p_c(\mathcal F)\le Kq(\mathcal F)\log\ell(\mathcal F).

Here and throughout this source, logarithms have base 22. The definitions, including attainment of the maximum defining qq, are recorded in the definitions page.

Full derivation from Theorem 1.4

Write ℓ∗=ℓ(F)\ell_*=\ell(\mathcal F) and let H\mathcal H be the hypergraph of minimal members of F\mathcal F. Then ⟨H⟩=F\langle\mathcal H\rangle=\mathcal F, every edge of H\mathcal H is nonempty, and H\mathcal H is ℓ∗\ell_*-bounded. A family covers H\mathcal H exactly when it covers F=⟨H⟩\mathcal F=\langle\mathcal H\rangle, so the two families have the same smallness parameter.

Fix qq with q(F)<q≤1q(\mathcal F)<q\le1; such choices exist because q(F)≤pc(F)<1q(\mathcal F)\le p_c(\mathcal F)<1. By the definition of the expectation threshold, H\mathcal H is not qq-small. Apply Theorem 1.4 with the larger edge-size bound

b=Cℓ∗.b=C\ell_*.

The constant CC can be chosen universally so that the theorem's exceptional probability at every b≥2Cb\ge2C is less than 1/41/4. Thus, for a universal constant LL, a uniformly random set XmX_m with

m=min⁡{n,⌈Lqnlog⁡b⌉},n=∣X∣,m=\min\{n,\left\lceil Lqn\log b\right\rceil\}, \qquad n=|X|,

satisfies

P(Xm∈F)>34.(1)\mathbb P(X_m\in\mathcal F)>\frac34. \tag{1}

Increasing LL only strengthens this assertion, so take it large enough for the elementary concentration estimate below. Put

p0=2Lqlog⁡b.p_0=2Lq\log b.

If p0>1p_0>1, the desired conclusion is immediate after increasing the final universal constant. Suppose p0≤1p_0\le1. Then ⌈p0n/2⌉≤n\lceil p_0n/2\rceil\le n, so m=⌈Lqnlog⁡b⌉=⌈p0n/2⌉m=\lceil Lqn\log b\rceil=\lceil p_0n/2\rceil. The singleton family {{x}:x∈X}\{\{x\}:x\in X\} covers the nonempty edges of H\mathcal H. Because H\mathcal H is not qq-small, it follows that

nq>12.(2)nq>\frac12. \tag{2}

Consequently the binomial random variable Y=∣Xp0∣Y=|X_{p_0}| has mean μ=p0n=2Lqnlog⁡b\mu=p_0n=2Lqn\log b, which is uniformly large once the universal constants are fixed. Since m=⌈μ/2⌉m=\lceil\mu/2\rceil, Chebyshev's inequality gives

P(Y<m)≤P(∣Y−μ∣>μ/2)≤4Var⁡Yμ2≤4μ<13.(3)\mathbb P(Y<m) \le \mathbb P(|Y-\mu|>\mu/2) \le \frac{4\operatorname{Var}Y}{\mu^2} \le\frac4\mu<\frac13. \tag{3}

Conditioned on Y=sY=s, Xp0X_{p_0} is a uniformly random ss-subset of XX. For an increasing family, the probability on the uniform level ss is nondecreasing in ss: expose one random permutation of XX and compare its first mm and first ss elements. Equations (1)--(3) therefore imply

μp0(F)≥P(Xm∈F) P(Y≥m)>34⋅23=12.\begin{aligned} \mu_{p_0}(\mathcal F) &\ge \mathbb P(X_m\in\mathcal F)\,\mathbb P(Y\ge m)\\ &>\frac34\cdot\frac23=\frac12. \end{aligned}

Hence pc(F)<p0p_c(\mathcal F)<p_0. Since log⁡(Cℓ∗)≤C1log⁡ℓ∗\log(C\ell_*)\le C_1\log\ell_* for a universal C1C_1 and every ℓ∗≥2\ell_*\ge2, this yields

pc(F)≤Kqlog⁡ℓ∗p_c(\mathcal F)\le Kq\log\ell_*

with a universal KK. Letting q↓q(F)q\downarrow q(\mathcal F) proves the stated inequality. The argument uses only Theorem 1.4 and elementary binomial concentration; the fractional threshold theorem discussed elsewhere in the paper is not an input to this derivation.

Bears on

  • Problem 202, through Ho's use of the theorem to find disjoint members in spread uniform set families, applied to the prime supports of moduli carrying disjoint residue classes.
  • Problem 1190, through the same application, which Ho's transfer carries to the reciprocal-sum estimate.