arxiv: v1 [math.co] 30 Jun 2016

Transcription

1 UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUNFLOWER-FREE SETS ERIC NASLUND, WILLIAM F. SAWIN arxiv: v [math.co] 3 Jun 6 Abstract. A collection of sets is said to form a -sunflower, or -system if the intersection of any two sets from the collection is the same, and we call a family of sets F sunflower-free if it contains no sunflowers. Following the recent breathrough of Ellenberg and Gijswijt and Croot, Lev and Pach [4, 3] we apply the polynomial method directly to Erdős-Szemerédi sunflower problem [6] and prove that any sunflower-free family F of subsets of {,,..., n} has size at most F 3n n/3 n 3 n+o /3. We say that a set A Z/DZ n {,,...,D} n for D > is sunflower-free if every distinct triple x,y,z A there exists a coordinate i where exactly two of x i,y i,z i are equal. Using a version of the polynomial method with characters : Z/DZ C instead of polynomials, we show that any sunflower-free set A Z/DZ n has size A c n D where c D 3 /3D /3. This can be seen as maing further progress on a possible approach to proving the Erdős-Rado sunflower conjecture [5], which by the wor of Alon, Sphila and Umans [, Theorem.6] is equivalent to proving that c D C for some constant C independent of D.. Introduction A collection of sets is said to form a -sunflower, or -system, if the intersection of any two sets from the collection is the same. A family of sets F is said to be -sunflower free if no members form a -sunflower, and when 3 we simply say that the collection F is sunflower-free. It is a longstanding conjecture that sunflower-free families must be small, and there are two natural situations in which we may as this question. The first, and most general case, is when each set in the family has size m. Erdős and Rado made the following conjecture which is now nown as the Sunflower Conjecture. Conjecture. Erdős-Rado Sunflower Conjecture [5] Let 3, and suppose that F is a -sunflower free family of sets, each of size m. Then F C m for a constant C > depending only on. In their paper, Erdős and Rado [5] proved that any -sunflower free family of sets of size m has size at most m! m, and the conjectured bound of C m remains out of reach for any 3. The second setting for upper bounds for -sunflower-free sets concerns the case where each member of F is a subset of the same n-element set. There can be at most n such subsets, and the Erdős-Szemerédi sunflower conjecture states that this trivial upper bound can be improved by an exponential factor. Conjecture. Erdős-Szemerédi Sunflower Conjecture [6] Let S be a -sunflower free collection of subsets of {,,...,n}. Then S < c n for some constant c < depending only on. In Erdős and Szemerédi s paper [6], they prove that conjecture follows from conjecture see also [, Theorem.3], and so it is a weaer variant of the sunflower problem. Let F n denote the size of the largest -sunflower-free collection F of subsets of {,,..., n}, and define µ S limsup F n /n n to be the the Erdős-Szmerédi--sunflower-free capacity. The trivial bound is µ S, and the Erdős-Szemerédi sunflower conjecture states that µ S < for all 3. In this paper we prove new bounds for the sunflowerfree capacity µ S 3. It is a theorem of Alon, Shpila and Umans [, pp. 7] that the recent wor of Ellenberg Date: May 7th 6.

2 UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUNFLOWER-FREE SETS and Gijswijt [4] on progression-free sets in F n 3 implies that µs 3 <, and before this, the best upper bound for a sunflower-free collection of {,,...,n} was n exp c n due to Erdős and Szemerédi [6]. We give a simple proof of a quantitative version of [, pp. 7], showing that µ S 3 +C where C is the capset capacity. However, using the ideas from the recent breathrough of Ellenberg and Gijswijt and Croot, Lev and Pach, [3, 4] on progressions in F n 3, and from Tao s version of the argument [9], we apply the polynomial method directly to this problem, and obtain a stronger result: Theorem 3. Let F be a sunflower-free collection of subsets of {,,..., n}. Then F 3n+ n, and n/3 µ S /3 The best nown lower bound for this problem is µ S due to the first author [8], and so there is still a large gap between upper and lower bounds for the sunflower-free capacity µ S 3. In section 3 we turn to the sunflower problem in the set {,,...,D}, which we will always thin of as Z/DZ. Alon, Shpila and Umans [, Definition.5], defined a -sunflower in Z/DZ n for D to be a collection of vectors such that in each coordinate they are either all different or all the same. When 3 and D 3 this condition is equivalent to being a three-term arithmetic progression in F n 3. Conjecture 4. Sunflower-Conjecture in Z/DZ Let D, and let A Z/DZ n be a -sunflower-free set. Then A b n for a constant b depending only on. The motivation for this problem comes from [, Theorem.6] where they proved that conjecture 4 is equivalent to the Erdős-Rado sunflower conjecture. In particular, if there exists a constant C independent of D such that any 3-sunflower-free set in Z/DZ n has size at most C n, then Conjecture holds for 3 with c 3 e C. Since a sunflower-free set cannot contain a 3-term arithmetic progression, the recent result of Ellenberg and Gijswijt [4] implies an upper bound for sunflower-free sets A Z/DZ n for D prime of the form A c n D, where c D De ID /3 for a function I defined in [4] in terms of a certain optimization problem. It s not too hard to see that c D < lim D D < Using the characters : Z/DZ C instead of polynomials, we prove the following theorem: Theorem 5. Let D 3, and let A Z/DZ n be a sunflower-free set. Then where c D 3 /3 D /3. A c n D This can be seen as progress towards the Erdős-Rado sunflower conjecture, and we remar that the now resolved Erdős-Szemerédi conjecture for 3 is equivalent to proving that c D < D ǫ for some ǫ and all D sufficiently large [, Theorem.7]. To prove Theorem 3 and 5 we bound the slice ran of a function of three variables Tx,y,z which is nonvanishing if and only if x y z or x,y,z form a sunflower. A function f : A F, where A A A A denotes the cartesian product and F is a field, is said to be a slice if it can be written in the form fx,...,x hx i gx,...,x i,x i+,...,x where h : A F and g : A F. The slice ran of a general function f : A F is the smallest number m such that f is a linear combination of m slices. If A is a sunflower-free set, it follows that, for x,y,z A, Tx,y,z is nonzero if and only if x y z. We then have the following lemma: Lemma 6. Ran of diagonal hypermatrices [9, Lemma ] Let A be a finite set and F a field. Let Tx,y,z be a function A A A F such that Tx,y,z if and only if x y z. Then the slice ran of T is equal to A.

3 UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUNFLOWER-FREE SETS 3 Using this lemma, we need only find an upper bound on the slice ran of T to obtain an upper bound on the size of the sunflower-free set. In each case we do this by an explicit decomposition of T into slices found by writing T as either a polynomial or as a sum of characters. We refer the reader to section 4 of [] for further discussion of the slice ran. This method is the direct analogue of Tao s interpretation [9] of the Ellenberg-Gijswijt argument for capsets, and can be thought of as a 3-tensor generalization of the Haemmer bound [7], which bounds the Sperner capacity of a hypergraph rather than the Shannon capacity of a graph. We stress two differences between our result and several other papers which use the slice ran method [9] [], or which have been reinterpreted to use the slice ran [3] [4]. First, these papers study functions valued in finite fields, whose characteristic is chosen for the specific problem and cannot be changed without affecting the bound. Our wor uses functions valued in a field of characteristic zero, though we could have done the same thing in any finite field of sufficiently large characteristic. Second, these papers mainly describe functions as low-degree polynomials and use that structure to bound their slice ran. In the proof of Theorem 5, we describe functions as sums of characters. One can interpret characters as polynomials restricted to the set of roots of unity, but under this interpretation the degree of the polynomial is not relevant to the proof of Theorem 5 - only the number of nontrivial characters is. Remar 7. The proofs of theorems 3 and 5 can be extended without modification to handle a multicolored version of the problem analogous to multicolored sum-free sets as defined in [].. The Erdős-Szemerédi Sunflower Problem Any subset of {,,...n} corresponds to a vector in {,} n where a or in coordinate i denotes whether or not i lies in the subset. A sunflower-free collection of subsets of {,,...,n} gives rise to a set S {,} n with the property that for any three distinct vectors x,y,z S, there exists i such that {x i,y i,z i } {,,}. Moreover, a sunflower-free collection of subsets of {,,...,n} that also does not contain two subsets with one a proper subset of the other gives rise to a set S {,} n such that for any x,y,z S not all equal, there exists i such that {x i,y i,z i } {,,}. This holds because the only new case is when two are equal and the third is not say x y and z is distinct, and then because x z, x is not a subset of z, so there exists some i such that x i y i and z i. Given a sunflower-free set S {,} n, let S l, for l,...,n, denote the elements of S with exactly l ones so that S n l S l. Then for each l, S l is a sunflower-free collection of subsets with none a proper subset of another, hence whenever x,y,z S l satisfy x + y + z / {,,3} n we must have x y z. For x,y,z {,} n consider the function T : {,} n {,} n {,} n R given by n Tx,y,z x i +y i +z i. i The function Tx,y,z is nonvanishing precisely on triples x,y,z such that there does not exist i where {x i,y i,z i } {,,}. Hence restricted to S l S l S l, Tx,y,z is nonzero if and only if x y z. So by Lemma 6, the slice ran of T is at least S l. Expanding the product form for Tx,y,z, we may write Tx,y,z as a linear combination of products of three monomials where i,...,i n,j,...,j n,,..., n {,} n, and x i xin n yj yjn n z zn n i + +i n +j + +j n n n. For each product of three monomials, at least one of i + +i n, j + +j n, + + n is at most n/3. For each term in T, choose either x i xin n, yj yjn n, or z zn n, maing sure to choose one of total degree at most n/3. Divide the expansion of T into, for each possible monomial, the sum of all the terms where we chose that monomial. Because one monomial in each of these sums is fixed, we can express each sum as a product of that monomial a function of one variable times the sum of all the other terms a function of the other variables, hence each of these sums is a slice. The total slice ran is at most the number of slices, which is at most the number of monomials we can choose: 3 times the number of monomials in n variables of degree at most in each variable and of total degree at most. The number of such monomials is exactly n n/3, so this yields the upper bound S l 3 n, n/3

4 UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUNFLOWER-FREE SETS 4 which is the statement of Theorem 3. S n S l 3n+ l.. Capset Capacity. A capset A is a subset of F n 3 containing no three-term arithmetic progressions. Let A n F n 3 denote the largest capset in dimension in n, and define n/3 C limsup A n /n n to be the capset capacity. Note that A n is super-multiplicative, that is for m,n we have A mn A n m since A n Cartesian-producted with itself m times is a capset in F mn 3. Ellenberg and Gijswijt [4] proved that C.755, and the following theorem is a quantitative version of a result of Alon, Sphlia, and Umans [, pp. 7]. Theorem 8. We have that µ S 3 +C where C is the capset capacity and µ S 3 is the Erdős-Szmeredisunflower-free capacity. Proof. We will bound the size of the largest sunflower-free set in {,} n by writing each vector in terms of the four vectors in {,} [ ] [ ] u, u. ] [, u n ] [, u 3 Every set S {,} n corresponds to a set S {,,,3} n where we obtain S from S by replacing each symbol i for i {,,,3} with the vector u i. For example, [ ] [ ] and 3. For each x {,} n consider S x { v S } : v i 3 if and only if x i. We may view elements of S x as elements of {,,} n x F n x 3 by ignoring the coordinates where x is. If three elements in S x form an arithmetic progression in F n x 3, then in each coordinate the elements of S x are either all the same or are,, in any order, so the entries of the corresponding vectors in S are either all the same or u,u,u in any order. Because u,u,u form a sunflower, these three elements of S form a sunflower. Because S is a sunflower-free set, S x is a capset. Let wx n i x i be the weight of the vector x, then S x C n wx where C is the capset capacity. Hence and we obtain the desired bound. S x C n wx n j n C n j +C n, j Using the Ellenberg-Gijswijt upper bound on capset capacity, this gives µ S 3.938, which is not as strong a bound as Theorem Sunflower-Free Sets in Z/DZ n Consider the D characters : Z/DZ C. By the orthogonality relations, for any a,b Z/DZ { if a b a b otherwise. Hence ab + bc + ac if a,b,c are distinct if exactly two of a, b, c are equal. 3 if a b c

5 UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUNFLOWER-FREE SETS 5 For x,y,z Z/DZ n, define the function T : Z/DZ n Z/DZ n Z/DZ n C by n 3. Tx,y,z ab + bc + ac, j n abc + abc + abc abc j which is non-zero if and only if x,y,z form az/dz-sunflower or all equal. LetA Z/DZ n be a sunflower free set. Then restricted to A A A, T is nonzero if and only if x y z. Hence by Lemma 6 the slice ran of T is at least A. Expanding the product in 3., we see that T can be written as a linear combination of terms of the form x n x n ψ y ψ n y n ξ z ξ n z n where,..., n,ψ,...,ψ n,ξ,...,ξ n are characters on Z/DZ, at most n of which are nontrivial. For any such term, at least one of the tuples,..., n, ψ,...,ψ n, ξ,...,ξ n must contain at most n/3 nontrivial characters. Grouping the terms by the one containing the fewest nontrivial characters lie this, we are able to upper bound the slice ran of T by 3 n D, n/3 where the D comes from the fact that for each set of indices, we have D possible choices of non-trivial characters. Because D 3, D, so: n D n/3 n n D D D 3 n n D D n/3 D n 3 n n n/3 D D n D n n/3 3 D + D n n 3 /3D /3 Let c D 3 D /3. This inequality proves that for A a sunflower-free set, /3 A 3c n D To prove Theorem 5 that A c n D, we can remove the factor of 3 by a standard amplification argument, as for A a sunflower-free set in Z/DZ n, A is a sunflower-free set in Z/DZ n, so A 3c n D / 3 / c n D. Taing, we obtain Theorem 5. References [] Noga Alon, Amir Shpila, and Christopher Umans. On sunflowers and matrix multiplication. Comput. Complexity, :9 43, 3. [] Jonah Blasia, Thomas Church, Henry Cohn, Joshua Grochow, Eric Naslund, Will Sawin, and Christopher Umans. On cap sets and the group-theoretic approach to matrix multiplication. 6. URL: [3] Ernie Croot, Vsevolod Lev, and Peter Pach. Progression-free sets in Z n 4 are exponentially small. 6. URL: [4] Jordan Ellenberg and Dion Gijswijt. On large subsets of F n q with no three-term arithmetic progression. 6. URL: [5] P. Erdős and R. Rado. Intersection theorems for systems of sets. J. London Math. Soc., 35:85 9, 96. [6] P. Erdős and E. Szemerédi. Combinatorial properties of systems of sets. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A, 43:38 33, 978. [7] W. Haemers. An upper bound for the Shannon capacity of a graph. In Algebraic methods in graph theory, Vol. I, II Szeged, 978, volume 5 of Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, pages North-Holland, Amsterdam-New Yor, 98. [8] Eric Naslund. Lower bounds for capsets and sunflower-free sets. Unpublished. [9] Terence Tao. A symmetric formulation of the croot-lev-pach-ellenberg-gijswijt capset bound, 6. URL: address: naslund@princeton.edu, wsawin@math.princeton.edu