Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Write for the largest edge count of a bipartite subgraph of (p. 1). Theorem 1.2 (p. 2). Some absolute constant makes every triangle-free graph with edges satisfy
Up to the value of the constant this bound is sharp: for some absolute constant , each is the edge count of a triangle-free graph with
Context on p. 2: Erdős and Lovász (cited through Erdős's Waterloo 1977 paper, the note's [6]) showed for triangle-free ; Poljak and Tuza improved it by a logarithmic factor; Shearer proved , display (3); "In the next theorem we improve the exponent to and show that this is tight." The Note added in proof (p. 8) records that Shearer independently, and earlier, proved the lower bound with for every .
In the site's notation. With the largest such that every triangle-free graph with edges contains a bipartite subgraph with edges, the theorem gives for every (the upper bound from the tightness half at ), which is the site's display with and ; the constants are not made explicit for the lower bound, and the sharpness construction (Proposition 3.2) gives along its sequence.
Source. N. Alon, Bipartite subgraphs, Combinatorica 16 (1996), no. 3, 301--311, doi:10.1007/BF01261315 (Crossref record read: issued September 1996); the author's final version read for this card ("appeared in Combinatorica 16 (1996), 301-311" on its p. 1; byte-identical to the Princeton copy per the card), Theorem 1.2 on its p. 2, proof on pp. 5--7 (Section 3), read on the page images of pp. 2 and 7 and in the text layer of pp. 5--6. The journal pagination was not attached to the preprint's pages.
Read depth. Claims checked: the statement, its two halves and the p. 2 context were read clause by clause on the page image; the proof of the lower bound (pp. 5--6) was read for structure in the text layer and not checked; the sharpness half is Proposition 3.2 (p. 7, page image), whose deduction to "for every " is stated on p. 7 in one sentence and not checked here.
Proof pointer
Section 3, pp. 5--7. Lower bound (pp. 5--6): put . Case 1, has no subgraph of minimum degree at least : a degeneracy ordering gives , and Shearer's inequality (8), for triangle-free (quoted from his paper, the note's [16]), gives (4). Case 2, an induced subgraph on vertices has minimum degree at least : a random set of at most vertices of leaves an induced subgraph with at least edges whose vertices all have a neighbor in ; coloring each vertex by its smallest neighbor in is a proper -coloring because is triangle-free; Lemma 2.1 (the -colorable cut lemma of Section 2) gives a bipartition of with surplus , and the remaining vertices are assigned greedily to the side where they have fewer neighbors, keeping at least half of the remaining edges. Upper bound (pp. 6--7): Lemma 3.1 ( for a -regular graph with least eigenvalue , by a quadratic-form computation) applied to the explicit triangle-free regular graphs of the author's 1994 construction (its [1]).
Dependencies
Same paper: Lemma 2.1 (p. 3), Lemma 3.1 (p. 6) and Proposition 3.2 (p. 7). External: Shearer's inequality (8) (the paper's [16]) for the lower bound; the explicit triangle-free graphs with extremal spectral properties from the author's 1994 Electronic J. Combin. paper (its [1]) for the upper bound. Neither external input was checked here.
Bears on
- Problem 581: the status-defining theorem; it determines to the order , not exactly, which is what the site's SOLVED records.