Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source scope. Published Section 3, p. 272
(PDF), asks for the
weighted version of the deletion proof. This page supplies the numerical
step, with a parameter depending on the bias.
Statement. Fix 0<p≤1/2 and put t=p/(1−p). For
0<δ≤t/40, nonempty families have one of the following slice
choices: either a growth step with product at least 1+δ times
the old product, or the widening step
(F1,G0∩G1) with product at least
bp,δ=1−tδ−t28δ2>0
times the old product. The growth choices are the two 1-slices or
(F0,G0∪G1), with the same forbidden
interval changes as in
definitions.
The families may first be interchanged.
Proof. Write f=μp(F) and g=μp(G);
slice measures have one fewer ambient coordinate. If
f1g1>(1+δ)fg, use the first growth choice. Otherwise interchange
the families so a=f1/f≤b=g1/g. Thus
a≤1+δ. If f0u>(1+δ)fg, where
u=μp(G0∪G1), use the second growth choice.
We bound the remaining case.
Set y=a−1, z=b−1, and x=u/g−1. The slice identity and
inclusion-exclusion give
Since u≥max(g0,g1)≥g, we have x≥0. Failure of the
second growth test implies 1−ty≤1+δ, hence
y≥−δ/t. Also y≤1+δ−1≤δ/2 and
z≥y. The inequalities u≥g1,g0 give
For the third inequality, subtract δ+ty from the fraction: if
y≤0 the difference is nonpositive; if y>0 it is at most
(δ/2)2δ≤δ2. All denominators are positive under
the stated bound on δ.
Using (1) and then (2), the widening product divided by fg is