Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated

Fractional palette savings for seven-cycles


The universal finite-template inequality follows from the joint-clique mass theorem and the functional palette lemma proved below. No outside-degree domination is required. For any admissible joint clique of mass m≥1/2m\ge1/2, the full-capacity color cost CC satisfies

C≥Q−1−m4.(1)\boxed{C\ge Q-\frac{1-m}{4}.} \tag{1}

In particular, when Q>1/4Q>1/4,

C≥Q−18+14Q−14>Q−18>Q2>18.(2)\boxed{ C\ge Q-\frac18+\frac14\sqrt{Q-\frac14} >Q-\frac18>\frac Q2>\frac18. } \tag{2}

The final section extends the conclusion to all supported thinnings. The homomorphic-cleaning reduction transfers the template inequality to the original asymptotic problem.

Templates, conflicts, and palette cost

Let AA be a finite symmetric zero-one matrix, with loops allowed, and let wi≥0w_i\ge0 have total mass one. Matrix powers below test only the existence of walks; all intermediate vertices and edges may repeat. A supported unordered edge type ijij has capacity

Mij=wiwj(i≠j),Mii=wi2/2,Q=∑ij∈E(A)Mij=12wTAw.M_{ij}=w_iw_j\quad(i\ne j),\qquad M_{ii}=w_i^2/2, \qquad Q=\sum_{ij\in E(A)}M_{ij}=\frac12w^{\mathsf T}Aw.

Here E(A)E(A) contains each supported unordered pair once, including each supported loop once.

Define the symmetric joint relation

Bij=1(A2)ij>0 1(A3)ij>0.B_{ij}=\mathbf1_{(A^2)_{ij}>0}\, \mathbf1_{(A^3)_{ij}>0}.

A set KK is an admissible joint clique if Bij=1B_{ij}=1 for every i,j∈Ki,j\in K, including the diagonal conditions i=ji=j. In particular every vertex in KK is triangular, meaning (A3)ii>0(A^3)_{ii}>0.

An edge type is active if at least one of its endpoints is triangular. The simple conflict graph J23J_{23} has these active edge types as vertices. Two distinct types are adjacent when they can be oriented as (a,b),(c,d)(a,b),(c,d) such that

(A2)ac(A3)bd>0.(3)(A^2)_{ac}(A^3)_{bd}>0. \tag{3}

This is the conflict graph used in the random-blow-up note. Inactive types have no demand in its palette program, although their capacities contribute to QQ.

For any finite simple graph HH and nonnegative demands did_i, put

Φ(H;d)=min⁡{∑I∈I(H)zI:zI≥0,∑I∋izI≥di for every i},(4)\Phi(H;d)=\min\left\{ \sum_{I\in\mathcal I(H)}z_I: z_I\ge0,\quad \sum_{I\ni i}z_I\ge d_i\ \text{for every }i \right\}, \tag{4}

where I(H)\mathcal I(H) denotes the nonempty independent sets. Such a set is called a palette. The finite linear-programming dual is

Φ(H;d)=max⁡{∑idiyi:yi≥0,∑i∈Iyi≤1 for every I∈I(H)}.(5)\Phi(H;d)=\max\left\{ \sum_i d_i y_i: y_i\ge0,\quad \sum_{i\in I}y_i\le1\ \text{for every }I\in\mathcal I(H) \right\}. \tag{5}

An optimal allocation in (4) can be chosen exact: ∑I∋izI=di\sum_{I\ni i}z_I=d_i. Indeed, whenever a vertex has excess coverage, remove it from appropriate portions of its palettes. This preserves all other coverage and cannot increase the cost; discard any empty palette. Starting from an optimum gives an exact optimum. Also, Φ(H;λd)=λΦ(H;d)\Phi(H;\lambda d)=\lambda\Phi(H;d) for λ≥0\lambda\ge0.

The full-capacity cost to be bounded is

C=Φ(J23;(Me)e active).C=\Phi(J_{23};(M_e)_{e\text{ active}}).

A functional palette lemma

Lemma. Let HH be a finite simple graph, let vi≥0v_i\ge0 sum to one, and suppose αi≥0\alpha_i\ge0 satisfies

∑i∈Iαi≤1(I∈I(H)).(6)\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_i\le1 \quad(I\in\mathcal I(H)). \tag{6}

Set R=Φ(H;(viαi)i)R=\Phi(H;(v_i\alpha_i)_i). Then

∑iviαi−R≤14.(7)\sum_i v_i\alpha_i-R\le\frac14. \tag{7}

If HH has a clique LL of vv-mass p≥1/2p\ge1/2, then

∑iviαi−R≤p(1−p).(8)\sum_i v_i\alpha_i-R\le p(1-p). \tag{8}

The clique need not contain every vertex of positive demand.

Proof. Equation (6) makes α\alpha feasible in (5), so

R≥∑iviαi2.R\ge\sum_i v_i\alpha_i^2.

Singleton palettes imply 0≤αi≤10\le\alpha_i\le1. Therefore

∑iviαi−R≤∑iviαi(1−αi)≤14,\sum_i v_i\alpha_i-R \le\sum_i v_i\alpha_i(1-\alpha_i)\le\frac14,

proving (7).

For (8), choose an exact optimal allocation (zI)(z_I). A vertex with αi=0\alpha_i=0 has zero demand and belongs to no palette of positive allocation. Its viv_i-mass is nevertheless retained in pp and 1−p1-p. For vertices with αi>0\alpha_i>0, define

ci={(1−p)2/αi,i∈L,p2/αi,i∉L.c_i= \begin{cases} (1-p)^2/\alpha_i,&i\in L,\\ p^2/\alpha_i,&i\notin L. \end{cases}

We claim that every palette II consisting of such vertices satisfies

∑i∈Ici≥∣I∣−1.(9)\sum_{i\in I}c_i\ge |I|-1. \tag{9}

A palette meets the clique LL in at most one vertex. If it meets LL, write α\alpha for that vertex's value and β1,…,βk\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k for the remaining values. When k=0k=0, (9) is immediate. When k≥1k\ge1, Cauchy--Schwarz and (6) give

(1−p)2α+p2∑j=1k1βj≥(1−p+pk)2α+∑jβj≥(1−p+pk)2≥(k+1)24≥k.\frac{(1-p)^2}{\alpha} +p^2\sum_{j=1}^k\frac1{\beta_j} \ge \frac{(1-p+pk)^2}{\alpha+\sum_j\beta_j} \ge (1-p+pk)^2 \ge \frac{(k+1)^2}{4} \ge k.

The penultimate inequality uses p≥1/2p\ge1/2 and k≥1k\ge1. If instead I∩L=∅I\cap L=\varnothing, write k=∣I∣≥1k=|I|\ge1. Again by Cauchy--Schwarz and (6),

p2∑i∈I1αi≥p2k2∑i∈Iαi≥k24≥k−1.p^2\sum_{i\in I}\frac1{\alpha_i} \ge\frac{p^2k^2}{\sum_{i\in I}\alpha_i} \ge\frac{k^2}{4}\ge k-1.

This proves (9).

Exactness now yields

∑iviαi−R=∑I(∣I∣−1)zI≤∑i:αi>0civiαi=(1−p)2∑i∈Lαi>0vi+p2∑i∉Lαi>0vi≤(1−p)2p+p2(1−p)=p(1−p).\begin{aligned} \sum_i v_i\alpha_i-R &=\sum_I(|I|-1)z_I\\ &\le\sum_{i:\alpha_i>0}c_i v_i\alpha_i\\ &=(1-p)^2\sum_{\substack{i\in L\\\alpha_i>0}}v_i +p^2\sum_{\substack{i\notin L\\\alpha_i>0}}v_i\\ &\le(1-p)^2p+p^2(1-p)=p(1-p). \end{aligned}

This also covers p=1p=1 and arbitrary zero values of viv_i or αi\alpha_i. No renormalization after deleting zero-demand vertices is used. □\square

A joint clique separates internal and cut palettes

Fix an admissible joint clique KK, and put

m=w(K)≥12,U=V(A)∖K,u=w(U)=1−m.m=w(K)\ge\frac12,\qquad U=V(A)\setminus K,\qquad u=w(U)=1-m.

Write

κ=eA(K),b=eA(K,U),c=eA(U),Q=κ+b+c,\kappa=e_A(K),\qquad b=e_A(K,U),\qquad c=e_A(U), \qquad Q=\kappa+b+c,

where internal edge masses include the half-capacity for loops, and crossing edge masses count each edge once. Every internal KK-type and every KK-UU cut type is active, since it has an endpoint in KK.

The internal KK-types form a clique in J23J_{23}: for any two of them, both connectors in (3) have endpoints in KK. Moreover, each internal type abab, with a,b∈Ka,b\in K, conflicts with every cut type ixix, with i∈Ki\in K, x∈Ux\in U. There is a two-walk from aa to ii; a two-walk from bb to ii, followed by the edge ixix, gives a three-walk from bb to xx. These are the connectors required by (3). Repeated vertices and loops are allowed in these witnesses.

Let CcutC_{\rm cut} be the palette cost of just the cut types, with their full capacities and the conflicts inherited from J23J_{23}. The preceding clique and complete-join statements imply

C≥κ+Ccut.(10)C\ge\kappa+C_{\rm cut}. \tag{10}

For example, extend an optimal cut dual by assigning value one to every internal KK-type and zero to every other type. Any palette contains at most one internal KK-type, and if it contains one, it contains no cut type. The extended dual is feasible and has value κ+Ccut\kappa+C_{\rm cut}.

If u=0u=0, all positive-capacity types are internal to KK, and C=QC=Q, proving (1). Henceforth assume u>0u>0.

Projecting cut palettes to outside vertices

Define a simple graph HH on UU: distinct x,y∈Ux,y\in U are adjacent if

(A2)xy>0or(A3)xy>0.(11)(A^2)_{xy}>0\quad\text{or}\quad(A^3)_{xy}>0. \tag{11}

These walks are in the full support AA, not just in A[U]A[U]. For each x∈Ux\in U, put

gx=∑i∈KwiAix,rx=wxgx,b=∑x∈Urx.g_x=\sum_{i\in K}w_iA_{ix},\qquad r_x=w_xg_x, \qquad b=\sum_{x\in U}r_x.

Every compatible palette of cut types has distinct outside endpoints, and these endpoints form an independent set in HH. To verify this, consider two distinct cut types ix,jyix,jy, with i,j∈Ki,j\in K. If x=yx=y, then (A2)xx>0(A^2)_{xx}>0, using either incident cut edge, while (A3)ij>0(A^3)_{ij}>0; hence the types conflict. If x≠yx\ne y and (A2)xy>0(A^2)_{xy}>0, the same pairing with the three-walk from ii to jj gives a conflict. If (A3)xy>0(A^3)_{xy}>0, use instead the two-walk from ii to jj. This proves the assertion.

Projecting an exact cut allocation to its outside endpoints therefore gives a valid HH-palette allocation with exact demands rxr_x. Indeed, injectivity within each palette makes the total coverage at xx equal to the sum of the demands of its incident cut types, which is rxr_x. Consequently, with

R=Φ(H;r),R=\Phi(H;r),

equation (10) gives

C≥κ+R,Q−C≤c+b−R.(12)C\ge\kappa+R, \qquad Q-C\le c+b-R. \tag{12}

For every independent set II of HH, the neighborhoods NA(x)∩KN_A(x)\cap K, x∈Ix\in I, are pairwise disjoint: a common neighbor would supply a two-walk between two vertices of II. Thus

∑x∈Igx≤m.(13)\sum_{x\in I}g_x\le m. \tag{13}

In particular this inequality holds for all independent sets of HH, not only those obtained by projecting a cut palette.

Define

vx=wx/u,αx=gx/m.v_x=w_x/u,\qquad \alpha_x=g_x/m.

Then ∑x∈Uvx=1\sum_{x\in U}v_x=1, and (13) is precisely the feasibility condition (6). Since rx=mu vxαxr_x=mu\,v_x\alpha_x, homogeneity and the functional lemma give

b−R≤mu4.(14)b-R\le\frac{mu}{4}. \tag{14}

If HH has a clique LL of original ww-mass l≥u/2l\ge u/2, its vv-mass is p=l/up=l/u, and the stronger bound is

b−R≤mu p(1−p)=mu l(u−l).(15)b-R\le mu\,p(1-p) =\frac m u\,l(u-l). \tag{15}

Vertices with gx=0g_x=0 remain included in vv and in the mass ll, exactly as permitted by the zero-demand part of the lemma.

Bounding the outside edge mass

The only structural input is the following homogeneous form of the joint-clique mass theorem: for a finite symmetric zero-one support with total vertex mass WW and edge mass E>W2/4E>W^2/4, there is an admissible joint clique of mass at least

W2+E−W24.(16)\frac W2+\sqrt{E-\frac{W^2}{4}}. \tag{16}

The cited note proves this theorem, including loops and zero weights, by a constrained maximization and the weighted Hajnal intersection lemma.

If c≤u2/4c\le u^2/4, equations (12) and (14) immediately yield

Q−C≤c+mu4≤u2+mu4=u4.(17)Q-C\le c+\frac{mu}{4} \le\frac{u^2+mu}{4}=\frac u4. \tag{17}

If c>u2/4c>u^2/4, apply (16) to the induced support A[U]A[U], with the original weights on UU. It gives an admissible joint clique L⊆UL\subseteq U of mass

l≥u2+c−u24.(18)l\ge\frac u2+\sqrt{c-\frac{u^2}{4}}. \tag{18}

Its internal two- and three-walks are also walks in AA, so it is a clique in HH. Moreover,

l(u−l)=u24−(l−u/2)2≤u22−c.l(u-l)=\frac{u^2}{4}-(l-u/2)^2 \le\frac{u^2}{2}-c.

By (12) and (15),

Q−C≤c+mu l(u−l)≤mu2+(1−mu)c≤mu2+(1−mu)u24=mu+u24=u4.(19)\begin{aligned} Q-C &\le c+\frac m u\,l(u-l)\\ &\le\frac{mu}{2}+\left(1-\frac m u\right)c\\ &\le\frac{mu}{2} +\left(1-\frac m u\right)\frac{u^2}{4} =\frac{mu+u^2}{4}=\frac u4. \end{aligned} \tag{19}

The last inequality uses m≥1/2m\ge1/2, hence m≥um\ge u, so the coefficient of cc is nonpositive. Equations (17)--(19), together with the case u=0u=0, prove (1) for every admissible joint clique of mass at least one half. No assumption on QQ was needed for this conditional statement.

Finally, suppose Q>1/4Q>1/4, and choose a maximum-mass admissible joint clique. Its mass MM, by (16) with W=1W=1, satisfies

M≥12+Q−14.M\ge\frac12+\sqrt{Q-\frac14}.

Inserting m=Mm=M into (1) proves the quantitative bound (2).

Supported thinning

Keep the support AA, its walk relations, and J23J_{23} fixed. Let 0≤te≤Me0\le t_e\le M_e be arbitrary demands on all supported edge types, and write

q=∑e∈E(A)te,C(t)=Φ(J23;(te)e active).q=\sum_{e\in E(A)}t_e, \qquad C(t)=\Phi(J_{23};(t_e)_{e\text{ active}}).

Complete an optimal allocation for tt to full active capacities by adding each missing active demand as a singleton palette. Its additional cost is at most Q−qQ-q, since inactive missing demand is nonnegative and requires no palette. Hence

C(t)≥C−(Q−q)≥q−1−m4(20)C(t)\ge C-(Q-q) \ge q-\frac{1-m}{4} \tag{20}

for every admissible joint clique of mass m≥1/2m\ge1/2.

In particular, if q>1/4q>1/4, then Q≥q>1/4Q\ge q>1/4, and (2) gives

C(t)≥q−18+14Q−14≥q−18+14q−14>q2>18.(21)\boxed{ C(t)\ge q-\frac18+\frac14\sqrt{Q-\frac14} \ge q-\frac18+\frac14\sqrt{q-\frac14} >\frac q2>\frac18. } \tag{21}

This proves the universal J23J_{23} half-edge inequality, and in particular the strict threshold inequality needed by the cleaning reduction.