Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Mass of a joint two- and three-walk clique
The sharp mass theorem proved for the three-walk relation in the three-walk pruning note also holds for the joint two-/three-walk relation. The proof below is independent of that pruning argument. It uses a global constrained maximizer and the weighted Hajnal intersection lemma.
Together with the palette savings argument, this theorem supports the C7 threshold result. The stronger dominating joint-clique condition discussed in the dominating-clique note remains unresolved, but is not needed by the completed proof.
Definitions and homogeneous theorem
Let be a finite symmetric zero-one matrix, with loops allowed. All walks below are walks in this fixed support; vertices and edges may repeat. Define
An admissible joint clique is a set such that for every , including . Write
for nonnegative vertex weights . Thus a loop contributes to .
Theorem. If and every admissible joint clique has mass at most , then
Consequently, if , the maximum admissible joint-clique mass satisfies
Throughout the proof, the admissible cliques are those of the fixed original relation . Coordinates may become zero during the optimization, but neither nor is recomputed. A walk witnessing compatibility may therefore use a zero-weight vertex. This is legitimate: the constraints concern the original relation, not the induced positive-weight support.
Weighted Hajnal intersection lemma
Let a finite graph have nonnegative vertex weights, and let be maximum-weight cliques, all of mass . Then
The same statement applies to admissible cliques in a symmetric relation with diagonal conditions, by restricting to its diagonal-eligible vertices.
For a self-contained proof, suppose are the intersection and union of some initial cliques, and add another maximum clique . The set
is a clique. Indeed, every vertex of belongs to every earlier clique, while each vertex of belongs to at least one of them. Thus every cross pair is adjacent; the pairs within and within are also adjacent. Its weight is at most , so
Therefore
For the first clique the sum is ; induction proves (3). No integrality or strict positivity of the weights is needed.
Existence of a constrained maximizer
Fix , and consider the closed polyhedron
Define
This function attains its maximum on , even though the polyhedron need not be bounded.
To see this, let . The singleton constraints give for . If , then : a loop would itself supply both required closed walks. The identity
therefore gives
All omitted quadratic terms are nonpositive. The right side tends to if the vector of coordinates outside becomes unbounded, while coordinates in are already bounded. Thus every nonempty upper level set is compact, and continuity gives a maximizer.
The degree window at a positive maximizer
Suppose, for a contradiction, that (1) fails for some feasible vector. Choose a maximizer ; it has . Put
Since ,
so .
Decreasing any positive coordinate remains feasible. The first-order condition consequently gives
There is also the upper bound
Suppose instead that . For every positive-weight neighbor of , the supported edge must be triangular in the original support. Otherwise , whence
contradicting (5).
It follows that the positive-weight neighborhood
is an admissible joint clique. For , the walk supplies the two-walk. Since is triangular, some original type is adjacent to both and ; the walk supplies the three-walk. This also proves the diagonal conditions when . The witnesses need not have positive current weight. But , violating the constraint defining . This proves (6), including when .
In particular , so
Hence
KKT and the common intersection
The first-order optimality conditions on the polyhedron give multipliers for the clique constraints and for the nonnegativity constraints such that
No concavity of is asserted or needed. At a maximizer, its gradient has nonpositive scalar product with every feasible direction. The normal-cone description of a polyhedron, equivalently linear programming duality for this linearized objective, gives (8).
Let
Multiplying (8) by , summing, and using complementary slackness gives
Since ,
Thus the family of cliques with positive multiplier is nonempty. Each has mass , so each is a maximum-weight admissible clique at the current weights. By (3), their common intersection has mass at least
Choose a positive-weight vertex in that intersection. It belongs to every clique with positive multiplier, and , so (8) yields
This contradicts . The contradiction proves (1).
If , applying (1) with first shows that . Applying it with then gives (2).
Sharpness
Take two disjoint looped clique types of masses and , where . Their joint relation has no cross pair, so the maximum admissible joint-clique mass is , while
Thus both (1) and (2) are sharp.
Consequences for high-degree types
For the rest of this note, the original weights have total mass one, , and . Write
In particular and . All reweightings retain the same fixed support and joint relation.
Nontriangular types and incompatible high-degree pairs
If is nontriangular, increasing only its weight by does not change the clique cap , and . Formula (1) therefore gives
Maximizing the quadratic when , and using the trivial bound otherwise, yields
If distinct have no three-walk between them, then they are nonadjacent. Increase both weights by . No joint clique contains both, so its new mass is at most . The total mass is , and the new edge mass is at least ; any loop contributions are nonnegative. Formula (1) implies
When , optimization gives
If the degree sum is at most one, it is also strictly less than . Finally, a pair with no two-walk has disjoint neighborhoods, hence degree sum at most one. Equations (11)--(12) consequently show that
is an admissible joint clique, including its diagonal conditions.
Every type of degree at least has a half-mass extension
Let , and let be the maximum mass of an admissible joint clique containing . Then
For a short proof, suppose every such clique has mass at most . Increase by . Every clique still has mass at most : those containing gain , and all others are unchanged. The new total mass is , and its edge mass is at least . Hence (1) would give
But and make the left side strictly greater than , a contradiction.
There is also the quantitative bound
To verify it, put
For every , increasing by leaves all joint-clique masses at most . Its exact edge-mass increment is . Thus (1) gives
Since , the latter quadratic is positive between its two roots. The entire interval must avoid that interval, so
Substituting proves the first inequality in (14). The right side above decreases with . Since and ,
which proves the strict uniform bound in (14). If , the first inequality in (15) is linear and gives the stronger estimate .
A high-degree anchored clique dominates every nontriangular type
Fix any type with , and let be the maximum mass of a joint clique containing . Then
We already have from (13), so only a nontriangular type of degree needs consideration.
Increase its weight by . Since belongs to no admissible joint clique, all clique masses, including and the mass of every -containing clique, are unchanged. Its degree only increases: . No maximum-degree assumption on is needed.
The new total mass is . Since , its edge mass is , and
Apply the homogeneous version of (13), obtained by scaling all weights by . The inequality gives a -containing joint clique of new mass strictly greater than . It excludes , so its original mass is identical. Hence , proving (16).
What remains for outside-degree domination
A color certificate in the archive required a joint clique , of original mass , such that
The theorem above supplies the mass condition but does not prove (17). A maximum-mass joint clique need not satisfy it; the explicit counterexample in the dominating-clique note remains valid.
Let . If , any maximum-mass joint clique does satisfy (17). In the remaining case , every maximum-degree vertex has a joint-clique extension of mass greater than , by (13), and even the lower bound (14). It has not been proved that a maximum-mass joint clique containing dominates the degrees of all its outside types. Equation (16) establishes this domination for every nontriangular outside type; only triangular outside types can violate it.
More generally, the threshold set is itself a joint clique, and every member individually has a half-mass extension. Any clique satisfying (17) must contain all of , since its mass is at most . A common half-mass extension of the entire set has not been established. Even such an extension would still require checking outside vertices whose degrees lie between its mass and . These are remaining questions about the stronger selection assertion, not gaps in the completed C7 proof: the palette savings argument avoids (17).