1 / 13

Foundations of Quasirandomness

Foundations of Quasirandomness. Joshua N. Cooper UCSD / South Carolina. Chung, Graham, Wilson ‘89. Szemerédi ’76ish. Simonovits, Sós ‘91. Graphs. Graphs. Chung, Graham ’90-92. Tournaments,. Subsets of Z n ,…. Chung, Graham ’90-92. Chung ‘91. Hypergraphs. Chung ‘91.

hazel
Download Presentation

Foundations of Quasirandomness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Foundations of Quasirandomness Joshua N. Cooper UCSD / South Carolina

  2. Chung, Graham, Wilson ‘89 Szemerédi ’76ish Simonovits, Sós ‘91 Graphs Graphs Chung, Graham ’90-92 Tournaments, Subsets of Zn,… Chung, Graham ’90-92 Chung ‘91 Hypergraphs Chung ‘91 Hypergraphs Kohayakawa, Rödl, Skokan ’02 Hypergraphs (p≠.5) JC ‘05 Quasirandomness Regularity Gowers, Tao – ‘05 Nagle/Rödl/Skokan/Schacht – ’05 Frankl/Rödl – ‘92, ‘01 JC ’03 JC ’05 Permutations Permutations

  3. The rough idea of quasirandomness: A universe: the class of combinatorial objects OBJ A property: P(o), true a.s. for large objects A sequence: o1, o2, o3, … Define {oi} to be quasirandom if P(oi) “asymptotically”. A (weak) example: OBJ is the class of graphs, P(G) is the property where as .

  4. Q1 P1 P3 Q2 P2 Q3 P4 By transitivity, the property cliques form a poset: Q1 P1 P3 Q2 P2 Q3 P4 For each random-like property P, one can define P-quasirandomness. Some types of quasirandomness imply other ones: The quasirandom property cliques studied historically have been surprisingly large, i.e., include a large number of very different random-like properties. Furthermore, many of the cliques look similar, even in different universes OBJ. So what exactly is quasirandomness?

  5. An information theoretic idea: Suppose that we have a space X, and a subset of k points of X… ? … then, X is quasirandom if learning whether or not the points are “related” tells us almost nothing about “where” the points are.

  6. An information theoretic idea: Suppose that we have a space X, and a subset of k points of X… … then, X is quasirandom if learning whether or not the points are “related” tells us almost nothing about “where” the points are. “Related”: A relation R⊂Xk “Where”: A familyLof subsets L⊂Xk “local sets” Let x be a uniformly random choice of an element from Xk, and write 1R for the indicator of the event that x in R. Then R is quasirandom with respect to L whenever, for all LL,

  7. Intuition: The statement only has force when P(L) is “not too small”, i.e., (1). Intuition: Learning that xL(“where x is”) tells you almost nothing new about the event R(x). Theorem 1. Suppose that min(P(R),1-P(R)) = (1). Then R is quasi- random with respect to Liff for all LL.

  8. Corollary 2. Write |X|=n. Suppose that min(|R|,nk-|R|) = (nk). Then R is quasirandom with respect to Liff for all LL. … which is why we recover quasirandomness in all its guises when we set: Object Type Local Sets Relations Graphs / Tournaments S×T, for subsets S,T⊂V(G) binary symmetric / antisymmetric Subsets of Zn arithmetic progressions (or intervals for “weak” quasirandomness) unary Permutations Sets π(I)∩J for intervals I, J binary (inversions) k-uniform hypergraphs “closed” k-uniform hypergraphs totally symmetric k-ary

  9. Definition. A k-uniform hypergraph is called “closed” when it is equal to its image under the closure operator u° d, where d(H )= the set of all (k-1)-edges contained in edges of H u(H )= the set of all k-edges spanned by a K(k-1)in H k H d(H ) u° d(H )

  10. X X X y1, (y1) y2, (y2) y3, (y3) We wish to reproduce and generalize the theorems appearing in different versions of quasirandomness. For example: Definition. For a set Y ⊂ Xk, we write π(Y) for the projection of Y onto the coordinates {2,…,k}. Definition. The family L of local sets is called robust if, whenever Y ⊂ X and: Y →L is any mapping, L includes the set

  11. Theorem 3. Let k > 1. If R is quasirandom with respect to L and L is robust, then, for almost all xX, π(R∩({x}×Xk)) is quasirandom with respect to π(L). All of the local set systems with k > 1 previously mentioned are robust. (And so is the set of all Cartesion products.) Translation into two sample contexts: Corollary 4. If a tournament T is quasirandom, then almost all out-degrees are n/2 + o(n). Corollary 5. If a hypergraph H is quasirandom, then almost all vertex links are quasirandom.

  12. Current questions (some of which are partially solved): • What are the conditions on R sufficient to prove the • converse of the theorem on the previous slide? (2) What about substructure counts, i.e., “patterns”? (3) What role does a group structure on X play? (4) Is there a spectral aspect of quasirandomness that goes beyond what is already known? Is it possible to make sense of this question for k > 2? (5) Describe the structure of the poset of property cliques induced by the possible families of local sets.

  13. Thank you!

More Related