Show that G_{n,p} does not contain a certain subgraph. LEMMA. Let a=a(n),c=c(n) be functions of n such that a(n) >= 1.1 and c(n)= o(an^{1-1/a}). Then, for p(n)=c(n)/n,G(n,p) a.s. contains no subgraphs with s vertices, s <= 0.35((2a)/c)^{a/(a−1)} exp(-2/(a-1))n, and more than as edges.

yrealeq

yrealeq

Answered question

2022-09-05

Show that G n , p does not contain a certain subgraph.
LEMMA. Let a = a ( n ) , c = c ( n ) be functions of n such that a ( n ) 1.1 and c ( n ) = o ( a n 1 1 / a ) .. Then, for p ( n ) = c ( n ) / n , G ( n , p ) a.s. contains no subgraphs with s vertices, s 0.35 ( 2 a c ) a / ( a 1 ) exp ( 2 a 1 ) n, and more than as edges.

Answer & Explanation

Hofpoetb9

Hofpoetb9

Beginner2022-09-06Added 17 answers

Step 1
What we want for E[X] is
s = 1 s max ( n s ) Pr [ s -vertex subgraph has  a s  edges ]
(where smax is the upper bound 0.35 ( 2 a c ) a / ( a 1 ) exp ( 2 a 1 ) n).
A term like ( ( s 2 ) a s ) p a s is an upper bound for the probability, but it's giving a lot away. More precisely, ( ( s 2 ) a s ) p a s ( 1 p ) ( s 2 ) a s would be the probability of exactly as edges, and the factor of ( 1 p ) ( s 2 ) a s could be significant when s is large. Dropping this factor means that other cases, where there are more than as edges, also get counted - but actually, they get substantially overcounted.
Step 2
In reality:
- If a s < p ( s 2 ) (so that our threshold of >as edges is below the expected number of edges in the subgraph) then the probability we want is between 1 2 and 1. In this case, E[X] would not go to 0, so we expect that the bounds we're given imply that a s > p ( s 2 )
- If a s > p ( s 2 ) , then the easiest thing to say is that "exactly as edges" is the likeliest case out of all cases with "at least as edges", so an upper bound on Pr [ s -vertex subgraph has  a s  edges ] is ( s 2 ) ( ( s 2 ) a s ) p a s ( 1 p ) ( s 2 ) a s .
- Better yet, if it turns out that a s > 2 p ( s 2 ) or so, then we're in a range where Pr[exactly Pr [ exactly  k + 1  edges ] < 1 2 Pr [ exactly  k  edges ] for k a s, and so a geometric series bounds Pr [ s -vertex subgraph has  a s  edges ] by 2 ( ( s 2 ) a s ) p a s ( 1 p ) ( s 2 ) a s . We don't care about constants in E[X], so this is as good as it gets.
- Instead of dealing with the above nonsense, an alternative option is to use a Chernoff bound.
I haven't worked out the details of dealing with E[X] from here, so it's possible that the bound we want is weak enough that your expression, without ( 1 p ) ( s 2 ) a s , will also work. (You should still realize that it's an upper bound, not exact.)

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

New Questions in Discrete math

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?