arxiv: v1 [math.co] 17 Feb 2011

Transcription

1 On Gromov s Metho of Selecting Heavily Covere Points Jiří Matoušek a,b Uli Wagner b, c August 16, 2016 arxiv: v1 [math.co] 17 Feb 2011 Abstract A result of Boros an Fürei ( = 2) an of Bárány (arbitrary ) asserts that for every there exists c > 0( such that for every n-point set P R, some point of R is covere by at least c n +1) of the -simplices spanne by the points of P. The largest possible value of c has been the subject of ongoing research. Recently Gromov improve the existing lower bouns consierably by introucing a new, topological proof metho. We provie an exposition of the combinatorial component of Gromov s approach, in terms accessible to combinatorialists an iscrete geometers, an we investigate the limits of his metho. In particular, we give tighter bouns on the cofilling profiles for the (n 1)- simplex. These bouns yiel a minor improvement over Gromov s lower bouns on c for large, but they also show that the room for further improvement through the cofilling profiles alone is quite small. We also prove a slightly better lower boun for c 3 by an approach using an aitional structure besies the cofilling profiles. We formulate a combinatorial extremal problem whose solution might perhaps lea to a tight lower boun for c. 1 Introuction Let P R 2 be a set of n points in general position (i.e., no three points collinear). Boros an Fürei [BF84] showe that there always exists a point a R 2 containe in a positive fraction of all the ( ) n 3 triangles spanne by P, namely, in at least 2 n 9( 3) O(n 2 ) triangles. (Generally we cannot assume a P, as the example of points in convex position shows.) This result was generalize by Bárány [Bár82] to point sets in arbitrary fixe imension: Theorem 1 (Bárány [Bár82]). Let P be a set of n points in general position in R (i.e., no + 1 or fewer of the points are affinely epenent). Then there exists a point a Department of Applie Mathematics an Institute of Theoretical Computer Science (ITI), Charles University, Malostranské nám. 25, Praha 1, Czech Republic b Institute of Theoretical Computer Science, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerlan c Research supporte by the Swiss National Science Founation (SNF Projects an ) 1

2 in R that is containe in at least c ( ) n O(n ) + 1 -imensional simplices spanne by the points in P, where the constant c > 0 (as well as the constant implicit in the O-notation) epen only on. The largest possible value of c has been the subject of ongoing research. With some abuse of notation, we will henceforth enote by c the largest possible constant for which Theorem 1 hols true. Upper bouns. Bukh, Matoušek an Nivasch [BMN10] showe that 1 c ( + 1)! 2π ( + 1) (+1) e = e Θ() (1) by constructing examples of n-point sets P in R for which no point in R is containe more than ( n +1 )+1 O(n ) many -simplices spanne by P. Lower Bouns. The result of Boros an Fürei says that c 2 2/9, which matches the upper boun in (1). For general, Bárány s proof yiels c 1 ( + 1), which is smaller than (1) by a factor of!. In [Wag03], the lower boun was improve by a factor of roughly to c ( + 1) +1, but this narrowe the huge gap between upper an lower bouns only slightly. Moreover, Bukh, Matoušek an Nivasch showe that the metho in [Wag03] cannot be pushe farther. An improvement of the lower boun for c 3 by a clever elementary geometric argument was recently achieve by Basit et al. [BMRR10]. We refer to [BMN10] for a more etaile iscussion of the problem an relate results. Gromov s results. Recently, Gromov [Gro10] introuce a new, topological proof metho, which improves on the previous lower bouns consierably an which, moreover, applies to a more general setting, escribe next. An n-point set P R etermines an affine map T from the (n 1)-imensional simplex n 1 R n 1 to R as follows. Label the vertices of n 1 by V = {v 1,..., v n }, 1 In [BMN10], a ifferent normalization is use, in the sense that simplices are counte in the form c n +1 O(n ). This means that the bouns on c given in [BMN10] have to be multiplie by ( + 1)! to match our normalization. 2

3 an the points as P = {p 1,..., p n }. Then T is given by mapping v i to p i, 1 i n, an by interpolating linearly on the faces n 1. Thus, Bárány s result can be restate by saying that for any affine map T : n 1 R, there exists a point in R n that is containe in the ψ-images of at least c ( +1) O(n ) many -imensional faces of n 1. Gromov shows that, more generally 2, the following is true: Theorem 2 ([Gro10]). For an arbitrary continuous map T : n 1 R, there exists a point in R that is containe in the T -images of at least c top -faces of n 1, where c top > 0 is a constant that epens only on. ( n +1) O(n ) many By the same abuse of notation as before, c top will also henceforth enote the largest constant for which Theorem 2 hols. In particular, c c top. Gromov s metho gives c c top 2 ( + 1)!( + 1) (2) For = 2, this yiels the tight boun c top 2 = c 2 = 2/9. For general, Gromov s result improves on the earlier bouns by a factor exponential in, but it is still of orer e Θ( log ) an thus far from the upper boun. One of the goals of this paper is to provie an exposition of the combinatorial component of Gromov s approach, in terms accessible to combinatorialists an iscrete geometers. Very recently, after a preliminary version of this paper was written an circulate, Karasev [Kar10] foun a very short an elegant proof of Gromov s boun (2) for affine maps. Karasev s proof, which he himself escribes as a ecoe an refine version of Gromov s proof, combines probabilistic an topological arguments, but he avois the heavy topological machinery applie in Gromov s proof an only uses the elementary notion of the egree of a piecewise smooth map between spheres. Karasev s argument can be moifie an extente so that it covers the case of arbitrary continuous maps into R (but not yet into general -imensional manifols). Furthermore, the combinatorial an the topological aspects of the argument, which are intertwine in Karasev s proof, can be split into two inepenent parts. In this way, any combinatorial improvement on the cofilling profiles or on the pagoa problem introuce in Section 6 immeiately imples improve bouns for Theorem 2 also via this simpler topological route. This will be iscusse in more etail in a separate note. 2 In fact, Gromov s approach is still much more general than this an applies to continuous maps from arbitrary finite simplicial complexes X to arbitrary -imensional manifols Y. The metho yiels lower bouns for the maximum number of -simplices of X whose images share a common point as long as X has certain expansion properties. This will be briefly explaine in Section 3.5 below. 3

4 Cobounaries an cofilling profiles. We nee two basic notions, cobounaries an cofilling profiles, which have their roots in cohomology but which can be efine in elementary an purely combinatorial terms. Let V be a fixe set of n elements, w.l.o.g., V = [n] := {1, 2,..., n}. We will always assume that n is sufficiently large. In topological terms, we think of the (n 1)-imensional simplex n 1 as a combinatorial object (an abstract simplicial complex), namely, as the system of all subsets of V. Thus, given a subset f V, we will also sometimes refer to f as a face of n 1, an the imension of a face is efine as im f := f 1. Let E ( V ) be a system of (unorere) -tuples, or in other wors, of ( 1)- imensional faces. We write E := E / ( n ) for the normalize size of E; one can also interpret E as the probability that a ranom -tuple lies in E. The notation E implicitly refers to an n, which have to be unerstoo from the context. The cobounary δe is the system of those ( + 1)-tuples in f ( V +1) that contain an o number of e E. (For = 2, this notion an some of the following consierations are relate to Seiel switching an two-graphs, which are notions stuie in combinatorics see the en of Section 2 for an explanation an references.) We emphasize that δe also epens on the groun set V, an sometimes we may write δ V E instea of δe to avoi ambiguities. Many ifferent E s may have the same cobounary. We call E minimal if E E for every E with δe = δe. We efine the cofilling profile 3 as follows: ϕ (α) := lim inf V =n min{ δe : E ( V ) minimal, E α}. Equivalently, one can also view this notion as follows. Suppose we are given a system F ( V +1), an we are guarantee that F is a cobounary, i.e., that F = δe for some E. Now we want to know the smallest possible (normalize) size E of an E with F = δe, as a function of F. It suffices to consier minimal E s, an ϕ(α) β means that if we are force to take E α, then we must have F β. We also remark that there is no minimal E with E > 1/2 (see Section 2), so formally, ϕ (α) = for α > 1/2 (since we take the minimum over an empty set). As a warm-up, let us consier case = 1: In this case, we can view an S ( V 1) simply as a subset of S V, an S is the set of eges of the complete bipartite graph with color classes S an V \ S; in graph theory, one also speaks of the ege cut etermine by S in the complete graph on V. S V \ S δs 3 Gromov uses the notation ( 1 ) 1 fil (β) for what we woul write as ϕ 1 (β)/β. Actually, he oes not take the lim inf, which we use in orer to avoi ealing with small values of n. 4

5 The minimality of S simply means that S n/2. It follows that ϕ 1 (α) = 2α(1 α), 0 α 1 2. For general, the following basic boun for ϕ was observe by Gromov, an inepenently by Linial, Meshulam, an Wallach [LM06, MW09] (an maybe by others). In our terminology, it can be state as follows: Lemma 3 (Basic Cofilling Boun). For every 1 an all α [0, 1], ϕ (α) α. We will recall a simple combinatorial proof of this boun, along with other basic properties of the cobounary operator, in Section 2. A simple example shows that the basic boun is attaine with equality for α = (+1)! e (+1), but for smaller α, (+1) (+1) improvements are possible, as we will iscuss later. In Section 3, we present an outline of topological part of Gromov s argument, which yiels the following general lower boun. Proposition 4 ([Gro10]). For every 1, c top ϕ ( 1 2 ϕ 1( 1 3 ϕ 2(... 1 ϕ 1( 1 +1 )...))). Theorem 2 follows from this proposition by using ϕ 1 (α) = 2α(1 α) an the basic boun for all 2. Better bouns on the c top woul immeiately follow from Proposition 4 if one coul improve on the basic cofilling boun in an appropriate range of α s; this is a purely combinatorial question (an a quite nice one, in our opinion). We establish the following lower bouns for ϕ 2 an ϕ 3 : Theorem 5. For = 2 an all α 1 4, we have the lower boun ϕ 2 (α) 3 ( ) α (1 4α) = 3 2 α 9 2 α2 3α 3 O(α 4 ). Fig. 1 shows a plot of this lower boun. Theorem 6. For = 3 an α sufficiently small, ϕ 3 (α) 4 3 α O(α2 ) (with a constant that coul be mae explicit). These theorems will be prove in Sections 4 an 5, respectively. They o not improve on Gromov s lower bouns for c 3, for example, since they o not beat the basic boun for the values of α neee in Proposition 4 for small. However, they o apply if we take sufficiently large in Proposition 4, an so they at least show that Gromov s lower boun on c top is not tight for large. 5

6 Figure 1: The lower an upper bouns on ϕ 2 (α): the straight line is the basic boun, the top one the upper boun (Proposition 7), an the bottom (most curve) is the lower boun (Theorem 5). After the research reporte in this paper was complete, Král et al. [KMS11] prove the lower boun ϕ 2 (α) 9 7α(1 α). This is better than the boun of Theorem 5 for α larger than approximately , an it oes improve on Gromov s lower boun for c 3. The bouns in Theorems 5 an 6 may look like only minor improvements over the basic boun, but it turns out that they have the right orer of magnitue for α tening to 0. Inee, we have the following upper boun on the ϕ s. Proposition 7. For all 1 an α 1 +1, let σ [0, 1) be the smallest positive number with α =!σ( 1 σ ) 1. Then an consequently, ϕ (α) +1 α. ϕ (α) +1 α(1 σ), These bouns are plotte in Fig. 2. Proposition 7 follows from a simple example, whose special case with α = 1 +1 has alreay been note in [Gro10] an in [LM06, MW09]. We present the example an its analysis in Section 2. We conjecture that the boun in Proposition 7 is the truth, an moreover, that the example mentione above is essentially the only possible extremal example. However, a proof may be challenging even for the = 2 case. On the other han, we believe that a suitable extension of the proof of Theorem 6 may provie a boun of the form 6

7 Figure 2: Plots of the upper bouns from Proposition 7 for = 2, 3, 4, together with the basic boun. ϕ (α) +1 α o(α) as α 0. At present it seems that such an extension woul be highly technical an complicate. In view of the upper boun ϕ (α) +1 α, Gromov s lower boun on c cannot be improve by more than a factor of roughly using Proposition 4 alone. In Section 6, we introuce a somewhat ifferent approach, which goes beyon Proposition 4 an uses aitional combinatorial structure, an we show that it can provie a slightly better lower boun for c 3. We formulate a combinatorial extremal problem whose solution might perhaps lea to a tight lower boun for the c top. 2 Basics Linearity of the cobounary. For systems E, E ( V ) of -tuples, E + E means the symmetric ifference. The cobounary operator is (well known an easily checke to be) linear with respect to this operation, i.e., δ(e + E ) = δe + δe, an we have δδe = 0, where 0 means the empty system of ( + 2)-tuples. Cochains, cobounaries, an cocycles. A system E ( V ) of -tuples is also sometimes calle a ( 1)-imensional cochain 4, or simply ( 1)-cochain. Later on, when 4 Strictly speaking, a cochain with Z 2-coefficients in the simplex n 1. 7

8 working with systems of tuples of various arities, it will be convenient to use this terminology. A cochain E is calle a cocycle if δe = 0, an it is a cobounary if it can be written as E = δd for some ( 2)-chain D. In algebraic terms, a ( 1)-cochain E ( V ) can be ientifie with a 0/1-vector inexe by the elements of ( V ), which we can interpret as an element of the vector space Z (V ) 2 over the 2-element fiel Z 2, an the symmetric ifference + correspons to the usual aition is this vector space. The cobounary operators are linear maps between these spaces (mapping 1-cochains to -cochains). The ( 1)-cocycles are precisely the elements of the kernel of this linear map, an the -cobounaries are the elements of the image. The property δδ = 0 is usually calle the chain complex property. Minimality. ( V +1), then δf = 0. As we have seen, every cobounary is also a cocycle, i.e., if F = δe In our setting, this is a complete characterization, i.e., F ( V +1) is a cobounary if an only if δf = 0. Topologically speaking, this is because the (n 1)-simplex has zero cohomology. We stress that there is one exceptional case, namely, = 0. There are two 0-cocycles F ( V 1), namely, F = V, the set of all vertices, an F = 0, the empty set of vertices. However, by efinition, 0 is consiere to be a cobounary, but V is not. In topological terms, this is because we are working with orinary, non-reuce cohomology. 5 This will be formally important in Section 3.1. Because of the equivalence of cocycles an cobounaries, for 1 1, minimality of E can be equivalently characterize as follows: E is minimal if E E + δd for every D ( V 1). Thus, minimality means that E contains at most half of the -tuples from each system of the form δd. Consequently, if E is minimal an E E, then E is minimal as well. It also follows from the alternative characterization of minimality that every minimal E satisfies E 1/2. To see this, let D = {x} be a singleton set consisting of a single ( 1)-tuple x. Then E δd 1/2 δd means that x is incient to at most δd /2 = n +1 2 many -tuples e E. Summing up over all x ( V 1), we get E ( n ( 1) (n + 1)/2, an hence E n ) /2. As was remarke above, minimality refers to a fixe vertex set V. If a minimal E ( ( V ) happens to be containe in W ) then, consiere as a set of subsets of W, it nee no longer be minimal. For example, suppose we partition V into three vertex sets V 1, V 2, V 3 of size n/3 each an let E = {{v 1, v 2 } : v 1 V 1, v 2 V 2 }, the (ege set of the) complete bipartite graph between V 1 an V 2. Then it is not har to check that E is minimal as a subset of ( V 2 ), but not as a subset of ( V1 V We remark that from a combinatorial point of view, it may be more natural also to consier the subsets of ( ) V 0. There are two such subsets, namely {ε} (the singleton set containing the unique 0-tuple ε of vertices of V ) an 0 (the empty set of 0-tuples). For reuce cohomology, one efines δ{ε} = V, so that the exceptional case in the characterization of cocycles isappears, but for the topological theorem that Gromov applies, it is important to work with unreuce cohomology. ). 8

9 V 1 = σn V 2 = 1 σ 3 n V 3 = 1 σ 3 n V 4 = 1 σ 3 n Figure 3: The upper boun example in the case = 3. The soli triangle epicts a typical element of E, an the ashe segments complete it to a tetraheron that is a typical element of δe. Links of vertices. For a vertex v V, let us write E v := {e E : v e}. The link of v in E is the system of ( 1)-tuples lk(v, E) := {e \ {v} : e E v }. It is easy to check the following formula for the cobounary of the link: δ lk(v, E) = E v + lk(v, δe v ) (3) (the + on the right-han sie is actually a isjoint union in this case). The basic boun for the filling profile. the basic lower boun for ϕ. We now recall a combinatorial proof of Proof of Lemma 3. Let F ( V +1) be a cobounary, an let β := F. We efine the normalize egree of v as lk(v, F ) = lk(v, F ) / ( n ). A simple counting shows that the average normalize egree of a vertex equals β = F. In particular, there exists a vertex v of normalize egree at most β; so we fix such a v an we set E := lk(v, F ). We will check that δe = F. Let F \v := F \ F v. Since F is a cobounary, we have δf = 0, an thus δf v = δf \v. Let us consier an arbitrary ( + 1)-tuple f an istinguish two cases. If v F, then it is easily seen that f δe is equivalent to f F. Next, let v f. Assuming f δe, we have f + := f {v} δf v. Using δf v = F \v, we get f + δf \v. Since the sets of F \v avoi v, there is only one set of F that may be containe in f +, namely f. So f F. This argument can be reverse, showing that f F implies f δe. The upper boun example. Here we prove Proposition 7, the upper boun on the cofilling profile ϕ. Let σ [0, 1] be a parameter. We partition the vertex set V into V 1,..., V +1, where V 1 = σn an the remaining vertices are ivie evenly, i.e., V i = 1 σ n, i > 1 (we ignore ivisibility issues). Let E consist of all -tuples that use exactly one point from each of V 1,..., V ; see Fig. 3. We have E =: α =!σ( 1 σ ) 1. 9

10 Then F := δe is the complete ( + 1)-partite system on V 1,..., V +1, an δe = +1 α(1 σ). This matches the quantitative bouns in Proposition 7, an it remains to check the minimality of E, which is easy (an state by Gromov an by Meshulam et al. without proof): Let us consier some E with F = δe. Every f F contains at least one e E, while every e E is containe in at most M := max i V i many f F. So E F /M = E. On Seiel s switching. In combinatorics, a two-graph is a set F ( V 3) of triples with δf = 0,i.e., a cocycle in our terminology). As we have mentione, this is equivalent to F being a cobounary, i.e., to the existence of some E ( V 2) with F = δe. The system of all possible E with δe = F is calle the Seiel switching class of E. Two-graphs an Seiel s switching were introuce by Van Lint an Seiel [vls66] an further stuie by many authors, because of their connections with equiangular lines, strongly regular graphs, an interesting finite groups, for example (for surveys see, e.g., Seiel an Taylor [ST81] or Hage [Hag01]). Numerous authors investigate the computational complexity of various problems relate to Seiel s switching (we refer to [JSHK10] for citations). For us, the following result is of particular interest: It is NP-complete to ecie if a given E ( V 2) is minimal (in its Seiel switching class), as was prove by Jelínková et al. [JSHK10]. Their reuction prouces only E s with E 1 2 an E 1 4 for all E in the same switching class; however, recently Jelínek (private communication, September 2010) was able to moify the reuction, showing that the problem remains NP-complete even if we restrict to only to E s with E c, for every fixe c > 0. This shows that minimal sets have a complicate structure, an one cannot expect to fin a reasonable characterization. 3 An Outline of Gromov s Topological Approach In this section, we give a rather informal an elementary outline of the topological part of Gromov s approach (Sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, an 2.6 of [Gro10]). This outline is not irectly relate to the new (combinatorial) results of the present paper. We strive to keep the iscussion as elementary as possible for as long as possible. For this reason, we restrict ourselves to the most basic (affine) setting of finite set P of n points in general position in R, which allows us to escribe most steps in the argument in simple geometric terms. As remarke above, Gromov s metho applies in much more general situations. In Section 3.5, we briefly iscuss the more general setting an also inclue some remarks as to how our elementary iscussion woul be formulate in more stanar topological terms. We begin with an outline of our outline, by means of an example. Example 8. Let P = {p 1,..., p 5 } be the set of five points in R 2 epicte by bol ots in Figure 4, an let V = [5] := {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. 10

11 p 3 z p 4 p 5 y x p 2 p 1 Figure 4: A set of five labele points in general position in R 2 (the image of 4 uner an affine map). Consier the three points x, y, z marke by crosses in the picture. These three points are in general position w.r.t. P, in the sense that they o not lie on any line segment spanne by P, an no point of P lies on any of the line segments spanne by x, y, z. Let F x = {{1, 2, 3}, {1, 2, 4}, {1, 2, 5}} be the set of all triples {i, j, k} ( V 3) such that x lies in the triangle p i p j p k, an let F y = {{1, 2, 3}, {2, 3, 4}, {2, 3, 5}} an F z = {{1, 2, 3}, {1, 3, 5}, {2, 3, 4}, {3, 4, 5}} be efine analogously as the (inex sets of) triangles containing y an z, respectively. Let F xy = {{2, 4}, {2, 5}} be the set of pairs {i, j} ( V 2) such that the line segment p i p j intersects the line segment xy, an let F yz = {{3, 5}} an F xz = {{1, 5}, {2, 4}, {4, 5}} be efine analogously. Finally, let F xyz = {5} be the set of inices i V such that p i lies in the triangle xyz (here, we ientify elements i V with singleton sets {i} V to simplify notation). The basic observation is that these sets satisfy the relations an δf x = δf y = δf z = 0, F x + F y = δf xy, F y + F z = δf yz, F x + F z = δf xz, F xy + F yz + F xz = δf xyz. It is straightforwar to verify this in the specific example at han, but it may in fact be easier an an instructive exercise to check that these relations are not a coincience, but hol in general for any finite set P R 2 an any triple of points x, y, z, assuming only general position. Moreover, similar facts hol in R. We iscuss a proof of the general case below. Informally speaking an in very general terms, the structure of Gromov s topological approach can be summarize as follows. Each step of the argument will be iscusse in more etail in a separate subsection below. We fix 1 (the target imension) an V = [n] (the vertex set of the (n 1)-simplex n 1 ). 11

12 1. We efine a topological space Z = Z ( n 1 ), the space of -imensional cocycles (of the (n 1)-simplex). This space is a simplicial set, i.e., a space built of vertices, eges, triangles, an higherimensional simplices like a simplicial complex, but simplices are allowe to be glue to each other an to themselves in more general ways (in a first approximation, simplicial sets can be thought of as higher-imensional analogues of multigraphs with loops, while simplicial complexes are higher-imensional analogues of simple graphs). The vertices of Z are the -imensional cocycles F ( V +1). The eges of Z correspon to relations of the form F 1 + F 2 = δf 12, where F 12 ( V ). The triangles of Z correspon to a triple of -imensional cocycles F 1, F 2, F 3, eges between them, an a relation of the form F 12 + F 23 + F 31 = δf 123, where F 123 ( V 1), etc. We stress that Z epens only on n an an is efine purely combinatorially. Moreover, as a combinatorial object, it is huge. For instance, the number of vertices of Z (-imensional cocycles of the simplex) is 2 (n ). 2. With every labele n-point set P R, we associate a particular subspace 6 W = W(P ) Z. A concrete way of oing this is to choose a triangulation T of R that is in general position w.r.t. P (i.e., no k-imensional simplex of T intersects any l-imensional simplex spanne by P if k + l < ). With every vertex x of T we associate the set F x := {f = {i 0, i 1,..., i } ( V +1) : x pi0 p i1... p i } of (inices of) -simplices spanne by P that contain x. As inicate by the example, each such F x is a cocycle, i.e., a vertex of Z (but not all vertices of Z may be of this special form). With every ege xy of T, we associate the set F xy of -tuples from V such that the corresponing points of P span a ( 1)-simplex that intersects xy. As in the example, we get the relation F x + F y = δf xy, an hence an ege of Z. Similarly, each k-imensional simplex of the triangulation gives rise to a k-simplex of Z (but not all k-simplices in Z may be of this form). We efine the subspace W to consist of all simplices of Z that are obtaine from an o number of simplices of T using this construction. (In principle, ifferent simplices of the triangulation T may tiel the same k-simplex in Z.) 3. It follows from a theorem in algebraic topology, the Almgren Dol Thom Theorem, that the subspace W is not contractible insie Z. 4. If we choose the triangulation T sufficiently finely, then for every point a R, there is a vertex x of T with F a = F x. Thus, if no point of R is covere by many -simplices of P, then all sets F x are small. If this is so, then by purely 6 Formally, it woul be more precise to regar W as a -imensional Z 2-homology cycle, i.e., as a formal Z 2-linear combination of -simplices in Z such that W = 0. However, since we are working with Z 2-coefficients, we can simply think of W as a subspace, given as the union of those -simplices that appear an o number of times in the formal sum. 12

13 W Z W o Z Figure 5: A schematic illustration of the last two steps of the argument: W is not contractible insie Z, but if no point in R were covere by sufficiently many -simplices of P then we coul contract W insie Z to a single point. combinatorial means, we can efine a concrete way of contracting the subspace W to a single point insie Z ; see Figure 5. This is a contraiction. Thus, some point must be covere by many -simplices. We now procee to iscuss the above steps in more etail. 3.1 Simplicial Sets an the Space of Cocycles Simplicial sets 7 are a generalization of simplicial complexes. As in the case of a simplicial complex, a simplicial set is built from 0-simplices (vertices), 1-simplices (eges), 2-simplices (triangles), an higher-imensional simplices. One starts with the vertices, then glues each ege to one or two vertices by its enpoints, then one attaches triangles to vertices or eges along their bounaries, etc. In contrast to simplicial complexes, the attaching may involve various ientifications. For instance, both enpoints of an ege may be attache to the same vertex, an two or more i-simplices in a simplicial set may have the same bounary. In this respect, simplicial sets can be thought of, in a first approximation, as higher-imensional analogues of multigraphs with loops. On the other han, in contrast to general cell complexes, there are restrictions as to what kin 7 These objects also have many other names commonly foun in the literature, incluing complete semisimplicial complexes [EZ50]. Gromov uses the terminology semisimplicial spaces. 13

14 of attaching maps are allowe 8, which makes simplicial sets more combinatorial than general cell complexes. We refer the reaer to the article by Frieman [Fri08] for a very clear an accessible introuction to simplicial sets an to the book by May [May92] for a etaile treatment (further references can be foun in Frieman s article). The key object in Gromov s metho is the space of -imensional cocycles, which we enote 9 by Z = Z ( n 1 ) an which is a simplicial set efine as follows. The vertices of Z are the -imensional cocycles (of the simplex n 1 ), i.e., subsets F ( V +1) such that δf = 0. The eges of Z are given by two (not necessarily istinct) -cocycles F 1 an F 2 an a set F 12 ( V ) such that δf12 = F 1 + F 2. We stress that F 12 an at least one of the F i are necessary in orer to uniquely efine an ege in Z. If there is a F 12 with δf 12 = F 1 +F 2 then it efines a ifferent ege of Z connecting the same pair of vertices. On the other han, if F 1 an F 2 are another pair of -cocycles with δf 12 = F 1 + F 2, then the same F 12 yiels a ifferent ege of Z connecting a ifferent pair of vertices. In the next step, a triangle of Z is given by a triple of -cocycles F 1, F 2, F 3, a triple of sets F ij ( V ) an a set F123 ( V 1) such that (i) δf ij = F i + F j, 1 i < j 3, an (ii) δf 123 = F 12 + F 13 + F 23. The F i an the F ij efine three (not necessarily istinct) vertices an three (not necessarily istinct) eges of Z that form the bounary of a triangle, an together with this other ata, F 123 efines a triangle glue in along that bounary. Again, there may be other F 123 with the same cobounary, which efine ifferent triangles glue to the same bounary (a higher-imensional analogue of a multiege), an there may be a ifferent set of F i an/or F ij which also satisfy conitions (i) an (ii); if so, they yiel, together with F 123, a ifferent triangle of Z, glue to a ifferent bounary. One can continue this efinition inuctively 10 for simplices of arbitrary imension r. The case of ( + 1)-simplices in Z, eserves special attention, however (ue to the exceptional behavior of the cobounary operator in imension zero, i.e., the fact that V is not consiere a cobounary, which was mentione in Section 2). A ( + 1)-simplex in Z is given by the following ata (see Figure 6): for each i = 0, 1,..., an each A ( ) [+2] i+1, there is a set FA ( V +1 i) (i.e., a set of ( i)-imensional faces) such that δf A = F B for 0 i, B A 8 Roughly speaking, one can think of each of the original simplices as having an orere set of vertices. The attaching maps are linear maps inuce by weakly monotone (orer-preserving) maps between the vertex sets of the simplices. 9 For those reaers who wish to rea [Gro10] in conjunction with the present one, we remark that Gromov uses the notation cl or cl sms for the space we enote by Z. 10 In the beginning of [Gro10, Section 2.2] Gromov also gives an equivalent efinition along the lines of the usual formal viewpoint of simplicial sets as functors from the category of finite totally orere sets an monotone maps to the category of sets, as in [May92]. 14

15 F 4 F 24 F 34 F 134 F124 F 2 F 12 F 3 F 13 Figure 6: An illustration of a 3-imensional simplex in Z. It is given by four 2- imensional cocycles F i ( ) V 3, six sets Fij ( ) V 2, an four setsfijk ( V 1) (with pairwise istinct inices i, j, k running between 1 an 4) that satisfy the relations δf ij = F i + F j, δf ijk = F ij + F jk + F ik, an ijk F ijk = 0. F 1 an A ( [+2] +1 ) F A = Intersections an Cocycles Let P = {p 1, p 2,..., p n } R be a labele set of n points in general position. We think of V = [n] as the set of labels of P. The goal of this section is to efine the subspace W = W(P ) Z for this set P. Let A = a 0 a 1... a k be a k-imensional simplex in R that is in general position w.r.t. P, i.e., no i-face of A intersects any ( i 1)-simplex spanne by P, 0 i k. We efine F A := {{i 0, i 1..., i k } ( V +1 k) : A pi0 p i1... p i k }. That is, we consier the ( k)-simplices spanne by P that are intersecte by A. Each such simplex is of the form p i0 p i1... p i k for some ( k)-tuple {i 0, i 1..., i k } ( V +1 k) of labels, an FA consists precisely of these tuples. For simplicity, we will also say that F A correspons to the set of ( k)-simplices of P intersecte by A. Thus, for a point x R in general position w.r.t. P, F x = {{i 0, i 1,..., i } ( V +1) : x p i0 p i1... p i } correspons to the set of -simplices of P that contain x. If xy is a segment in general position, then F xy correspons to the set of ( 1)-simplices of P that intersect xy, etc. As remarke above, the sets F x are always cocycles, i.e., δf x = 0, an the sets F xy satisfy F x + F y = δf xy. More generally, we have: 15

16 Lemma 9. Let A = a 0 a 1... a k be a k-simplex in R that is in general position w.r.t. P. Then δf A = F A := F A0 + F A F Ak, where A i = a 0... a i 1 a i+1... a k is the (k 1)-face of A obtaine by ropping vertex a i. Proof. Consier a ( k + 2)-tuple in f V corresponing to a ( k + 1)-imensional simplex σ spanne by P. By general position, this ( k + 1)-imensional simplex σ is either isjoint from A, or it intersects A in a line segment. Each enpoint of this line segment σ A is of one of two types: either such an enpoint arises as the intersection of σ A i of σ with some facet of A, or as the intersection σ j A of A with some facet of σ. If the intersection σ A is empty or if both enpoints are of the same kin then f oes not contribute to either sie of the claime ientity. If there is one enpoint of each type, then f contributes to both sies of the ientity. If we apply the preceing lemma to a (k 1)-face A i of A, we see that δf Ai = j i F Aij, where A ij is the (k 2)-face of A obtaine by ropping vertices y i an y j. Iterating this, we see that A, together with all its faces, efines a k-imensional simplex in Z, which we enote by P (A). Note that, in particular, the vertices of P (A) correspon to the -cocycles F ai associate with the vertices a i of A. Now we procee to efine the space W. We fix a -imensional bouning simplex B that contains P in its interior. We also choose an fix a triangulation of B that is in general position with respect to P an that is sufficiently fine, in the sense that (a) for every point q R there is a vertex x of T with F q = F x, an (b) any simplex A in the triangulation of imension im A = k > 0 intersects o(n k+1 ) of the ( k)-simplices of P, i.e., F A = o(1). Now we complete this triangulation of B to a triangulation T of the -imensional sphere 11 S by aing a point at infinity an coning from this point over the bounary of B; see Figure 7. We efine a subspace W of Z by taking the formal sum of the -simplices P (A) over all -simplices A of T (note that for all simplices A involving the vertex at infinity, we have F A = 0). In other wors, a -simplex of Z is inclue in W if it is equal to P (A) for an o number of -simplices A of T. (Formally, in homological terminology, W is a -imensional simplicial cycle in Z.) We stress that W is etermine by the -simplices of T, not by the vertices of T. 11 The somewhat a-hoc evice of introucing a bouning simplex an passing to a triangulation of the sphere can be avoie by using so-calle homology with infinite supports (as Gromov oes), but we opte for the a-hoc metho to keep the treatment more elementary. 16

17 T Figure 7: A set of five points in the plane an the line segments spanne by them (epicte by bol ots an soli segments), an a triangulation T of a bouning simplex B plus a vertex at infinity (epicte by crosses an ashe lines). As we have escribe it, the subspace W of Z epens not only on P, but also on the triangulation T that we have chosen. It turns out that for any two choices of triangulations, the corresponing subspaces W are equivalent in a suitable sense (any two such cycles are homologous); see Section Nontriviality The key fact upon which Gromov s metho hinges is that the subspace W efine in the previous subsection is always nontrivial, in the following sense: Key Fact. The subspace W efine above cannot be contracte insie Z. (More formally, one has the stronger statement that W is homologically nontrivial, i.e., that it is not a homological bounary insie Z.) Gromov euces this fact from what he calls the algebraic version of the Almgren Dol Thom theorem (see [Gro10, Section 2.2]), but we have not been able to locate the 17

18 ADT theorem in a suitable form an with proof in the literature. 12 So we will treat the Key Fact as a black box in our presentation. 3.4 Coning in the Space of Cocycles an the Proof of Proposition 4 To prove Proposition 4, one argues that if F y were too small for all vertices y of the triangulation T, then the space W coul be contracte to a point insie W a contraiction. In orer to show contractibility, we have the following simple coning argument: Suppose there is a vertex o in Z such that we can inuctively construct a cone o W in Z. That is, suppose we o the following, by inuction on the imension i: For each i-simplex τ that is a face of at least one -face in W, select an (i + 1)-simplex o τ in Z that has τ as an i-face an o as the remaining vertex, in such a way that (o τ) = τ + o τ. (4) This conition means that our choices for higher-imensional faces have to be consistent with what we have alreay committe to for lower-imensional faces. We note that if Z were just a simplicial complex, then for each τ there woul be either a unique choice for o τ, or none at all, but for simplicial sets, there may be many choices. We also remark that o τ may be a egenerate simplex, in the sense that o alreay appears as a vertex of τ. Given a coning, one can contract W to o, by continuously moving each simplex τ of W towars o insie o τ. To perform the coning for W, we nee to fix a vertex o in Z an, for every k-simplex A of the triangulation T, choose a (k + 1)-simplex o P (A) in such a way that the coning conition (4) is satisfie. That is, inuctively, for every k-simplex A of T, we have to choose a ( k 1)-cochain F Ao ( V k) such that δf Ao = F A + B F Bo, where the sum is over all (k 1)-faces B of A. Using the cofilling profile of n 1, we show that we can o this if all F y are small, thus obtaining a contraiction. We choose o to be the vertex of Z corresponing to the zero -cocycle 0 in n 1. For every vertex y of the triangulation, let F y be the corresponing vertex in Z (cocycle in n 1 ). We pick an arbitrary minimal ( 1)-cochain F yo with δf yo = F y (= F y + 0). By minimality, we have F y ϕ ( F oy ). Next, consier an ege xy in the triangulation T. The corresponing ( 1)-cochain F xy satisfies δf xy = F x + F y (Lemma 9). It follows that δ(f xy + F xo + F yo ) = F x + F y + F x + F y = The paper by Almgren [Alm62] that Gromov cites works in the setting of geometric measure theory an is about integral currents an cycles; an oler paper by Dol an Thom [DT58] works in the setting of simplicial sets, but only establishes a special case. It may well be that the theorem is well-known an clear to experts in the fiel, but not to us. 18

19 o F z F zo F xo F yo F yo F xz F xyz F yz F x F xy F y Figure 8: An illustration of the coning for the bounary of a triangle xyz of T. We use a simplifie labeling of the resulting simplices in Z. For example, the 0-chain F xzo by itself oes not etermine a triangle of Z, but only oes so together with the 2-cocycles o, F x, F z an the 1-chains F xz, F xo, F zo that are alreay etermine. We also stress that the coning involves making choices, e.g. between 1-cochains F yo an F yo that etermine ifferent eges connecting F y an o, an once we have mae a choice, we must stick to it when choosing higher-imensional faces. Now we pick a minimal ( 2)-cochain F xyo such that δf xyo = F xy +F xo +F yo. It follows that F xy + F xo + F yo ϕ 1 ( F xyo ). Moreover, by our choice of the triangulation, we have F xy = o(1). Thus, up to an o(1) aitive error, F xo + F yo ϕ 1 ( F xyo ), hence max{ F xo, F yo } 1 2 ϕ 1( F xyo ), an so max{ F x, F y } ϕ ( 1 2 ϕ 1( F xyo ) (where we suppress o(1) aitive error terms in both formulas). In the next step, we consier a triangle xyz of T. By our assumption on T, we have F xyz = o(1). By the choice of F xyo, F yzo, an F zxo, an using Lemma 9, we obtain δ(f xyz + F xyo + F yzo + F zxo ) = 0, an so we can choose a minimal ( 3)-chain F xyzo with δf xyzo = F xyz + F xyo + F yzo + F zxo. See Figure 8 for an illustration. Reasoning as before, we obtain max{ F xyo, F yzo, F zxo } 1 3 ϕ 2( F xyzo ), an hence max{ F x, F y, F z } ϕ ( 1 2 ϕ 1( 1 3 ϕ 2( F xyzo ))). We can continue this argument by inuction. In the final step, consier a -face A of the triangulation. Corresponing to it, there is a 0-cochain FA. Moreover, for every ( 1)-face B of A, we have alreay constructe a 0-cochain F Bo such that max F x ϕ ( 1 x B 2 ϕ 1( 1 3 ϕ 2(... 1 ϕ 1( F Bo )...))) 19

20 an δ(f a + B F Bo) = 0. Thus, F a + B F Bo is a 0-cocycle, an so it must be either 0 or all of V, the whole vertex set of n 1. In the former case, we can complete the coning for A by setting F Ao = 0. If we coul o this for all -faces A of T, we woul be able to complete the coning, thus reaching a contraiction. Therefore, there must be a -face A such that F A + B F Bo = V. Since F A = o(1), it follows that for some B A, we must have F Bo Maximizing over all vertices of T, we conclue max F x ϕ ( 1 x 2 ϕ 1( 1 3 ϕ 2(... 1 ϕ 1( 1 +1 )...))). This completes (our outline of) the proof of Proposition 4 in the affine case. 3.5 Gromov s Metho in the Topological Setting As was mentione in the introuction, the setting of an n-point set P R consiere in the previous subsections correspons to an affine map from the (n 1)-simplex n into R. Gromov s metho applies to much more general situations. More precisely, it allows for the setting to generalize in several ways, as we now sketch. 1. The simplex n 1 can be replace by an arbitrary (finite) simplicial complex X. What is neee are lower bouns on the cofilling profile of X, which is efine as follows: For k 0, let X k be the set of k-imensional faces of X. For each k, we have the cobounary operator of X which maps a subset E X k to δe := {f X k+1 : f contains an o number of e E}. We can ientify E X k with a 0/1-vector inexe by X k, i.e., with an element of the vector space Z X k 2 over the 2-element fiel Z 2. In more usual (co)homological terminology, this latter vector space is enote by C k (X; Z 2 ) an calle the space of k-imensional cochains (with Z 2 -coefficients), an δ is a linear map C k (X; Z 2 ) C k+1 (X; Z 2 ). For a k-imensional cochain E, we efine E := E / X k as the normalize support size of E as before, an ϕ X (α) := min{ δe : E C (X; Z 2 ) minimal, E α}, where E is minimal if E E + δd for all D C (X; Z 2 ). The space Z (X) of -imensional cocycles of X is efine completely analogously to the case of the simplex. 2. The target space R can be replace by an arbitrary triangulate -imensional manifol Y, or, even more generally, a Z 2 -homology manifol. What we nee is to be able to compute intersection numbers (moulo 2) between k-imensional chains an ( k)-imensional chains. Equivalently, we nee that Poincaré uality (with Z 2 coefficients) hols in Y. 20

21 3. Instea of affine maps, we can allow for arbitrary continuous maps T : X Y. Without loss of generality, one can think of T as a piecewise linear map in general position. This is not necessary for the argument, but may help the reaer s intuition. For instance, for such a map, the T -image of any ( k)-simplex σ of X intersects any k-simplex A of Y in a finite number of points in the relative interior of A, an the (algebraic, Z 2 ) intersection number of T (σ) an A is efine as the number of intersection points moulo Finally, instea of cohomology with Z 2 -coefficients, one can work with other coefficient rings in the argument. Potentially, this might lea to stronger bouns. We will not iscuss this generalization, since on the one han, it is straightforwar, an on the other han, we woul have to talk about orientations everywhere. The basic structure of the proof remains the same, but we have to change the efinition of the cochains F A appropriately, as follows: If A is a k-imensional simplex in general position, one efines F A as the set of ( k)-simplices of X whose images uner T have o intersection number with A. Another way of interpreting this construction is as follows: Every k-simplex A efines, via Poincaré uality, a ( k)-cochain in Y, an this ( k)-cochain pulls back uner T to a cochain F A in X. The basic ientity δf A = F A := F A0 + F A F Ak (5) still hols. (This just says that on the level of chains an cochains, Poincaré uality exchanges bounary an cobounary operators). In other wors, every k-simplex A in general position efines a k-simplex T (A) in Z (X) via the intersection number construction. If Y is compact, i.e., has a finite triangulation, then the subspace W = W(T ) Z (X) is efine as the formal Z 2 - linear combination of the -simplices T (A), where A ranges over all -simplices in the triangulation of Y. In other wors, a -simplex of Z (X) belongs to W if it equals T (A) for an o number of -simplices A of the triangulation of Y. An equivalent way of efining W this is as follows: The basic ientity (5) implies that the map A T (A) commutes with the bounary operator, i.e., it is a chain map (with Z 2 -coefficients) from Y to Z (X). Thus, this map also inuces a map in homology. Let [Y ] enote the funamental -imensional homology class (over Z 2 ) of Y. If we fix a triangulation of Y, we can take a representative -cycle for [Y ] that is the formal Z 2 -linear combination of all the -simplices of the triangulation. (If Y is not compact, as in the case Y = R, then we have to work with homology with infinite supports.) Then W = W(f) is efine as the image uner the map T of [Y ], i.e., formally, it is a -imensional cycle (with Z 2 -coefficients) in Z (X). As before, the Almgren Dol-Thom Theorem implies that this cycle is homologically nontrivial, so it cannot be contracte. On the other han, if every point of Y were covere by the T -images of too few - simplices of X, then the same combinatorial coning as before woul yiel a contraiction 21

22 (with the precise meaning of too few epening on the cofilling profile of X). Again, the combinatorial coning can also be viewe as an actual topological contraction of W, consiere as a subspace of Z (X), to the point o. If Y is unboune, or if we are guarantee that there is a point of Y that is not covere by the image of T, then the same argument as before shows that max F y ϕ X y ( 1 2 ϕx 1 ( 1 3 ϕx 2 (... 1 ϕx 1 ( 1 +1 )...))), where the maximum is over all vertices y of the triangulation of Y. (If Y is not unboune an if every point in Y is covere by the T -images of some -simplices of X, then we have to choose the apex o of the coning ifferently (not as the empty cocycle), which yiels a weaker boun.) In particular, if X is a Z 2 -cohomological expaner, i.e., if ϕ X i (α)/α is boune away from zero for all i, then there is some point of Y that is covere by a positive fraction of all -simplices of X (with a constant epening on the cofilling profile of X). We remark that for the coning argument, we again choose the triangulation T to be sufficiently fine with respect to the map T, i.e., we assume that for every simplex A of the triangulation of imension im A > 0, we have F A = o(1). If the map T is very complicate (i.e., if we nee a very fine subivision of X to approximate T by a PL map), then the triangulation T may require a huge number of simplices, so it is important that the whole argument is completely inepenent of the number of simplices in the triangulation T. 4 The cofilling profile in the = 2 case Here we prove Theorem 5, which asserts that ϕ 2 (α) f(α) := 3 ( ) α (1 4α). Since = 2, we eal with the size of the cobounary for an ege set E of a graph. The minimality of E means that no ege cut has ensity more than 1 2 in this graph; in other wors, for every S V, the number of eges of E going between S an V \ S is at most 1 2 S V \ S. As we have remarke at the en of Section 2, the minimality of E is a complicate property, computationally har to test, for example. So we will only use it for singleton sets S. Thus, we will actually show that δe f(α) (ignoring terms tening to 0 as n ) for every E with E α an eg E (v) n 2 for all v V (where eg E(v) enotes the number of neighbors of v in the graph (V, E)). Before proceeing with the proof of Theorem 5, let us remark that this relaxation (i.e., ignoring all non-singleton S) alreay prevents us from obtaining a tight boun for ϕ 2. For example, let us partition V into sets V 1, V 2, V 3, where V 1 = αn an V 2 = n 2, an let E consist of all eges connecting V 1 to V 2. This E is not minimal, but it oes satisfy the egree conition. One easily checks that E = α an δe = 3α( 1 2 α) = 3 2 α 3α2, which is smaller than the suspecte tight boun for ϕ 2 from Proposition 7. However, at least the leaing term is correct. Now we procee with the proof. Given E, let m i enote the number of triples f ( ) V 3 that contain i eges of E, i = 1, 2, 3; we have δe = m 1 + m 3 by efinition. An easy 22

23 inclusion-exclusion consieration shows that δe = (n 2) E v V eg E (v)(eg E (v) 1) + 4t, (6) where t enotes the number of triangles in the graph (V, E). Inee, to check (6), it suffices to iscuss how many times a triple f ( V 3) containing exactly i eges e E contributes to the right-han sie, i = 1, 2, 3. For i = 1, such an f is only counte once in the term (n 2) E, which counts the number of orere pairs (e, v), where e E an v V \ e. A triple f with i = 2 is counte twice in the term (n 2) E, but it is also counte twice in v V eg E(v)(eg E (v) 1), an thus its total contribution is zero. Finally, for i = 3, where f inuces a triangle, it is counte three times in (n 2) E, six times in v V eg E(v)(eg E (v) 1), an four times in 4t, so altogether it contributes +1 as it shoul. As the next simplification, we will ignore the triangles, as well as the ifference between eg E (v)(eg E (v) 1) an eg E (v) 2, an we will use (6) in the form δe (n 2) E v V eg E (v) 2. (7) Since E is given, it remains to maximize v V eg E(v) 2, which is one in the next lemma. Lemma 10. Let α 1 4. Let (V, E) be a graph on n vertices with E = α( n 2) an eg E (v) n 2 for all v V. Then v V where σ = (1 1 4α)/2. eg E (v) 2 ( σ 4 (1 + 2σ 4σ2 ) + o(1) ) n 3, Proof. Let (V, E) be the given graph with n vertices an E = α ( n 2) eges. By a sequence of transformations that o not change the number of eges an that o not ecrease the sum of square egrees, we convert it to a particular form. Let us number the vertices v 1,..., v n so that 1 2 n, where i := eg E (v i ). We note that for i j, we have ( i + 1) 2 + ( j 1) 2 > 2 i + 2 j, an thus a transformation that changes i to i + 1 an j to j 1 an leaves the rest of the egrees unchange increases the sum of square egrees. For an ege e = {v i, v j } with i < j, we call v i the left en of e an v j the right en. (i) Let k be such that 1 = 2 = = k = n 2, while k+1 < n 2. Then we may assume that the left ens of all eges are among v 1,..., v k+1. Inee, if there is an ege {v i, v j }, i > k + 1, we can replace it with the ege {v k+1, v j }. This increases k+1 i=1 i (an possibly increases k), so after finitely many steps, we achieve the require conition. 23