MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

Linearity of expectations refers to the following basic fact about the expectation: given
random variables 𝑋1 , . . . , 𝑋𝑛 and constants 𝑐 1 , . . . , 𝑐 𝑛 ,

E[𝑐 1 𝑋1 + · · · + 𝑐 𝑛 𝑋𝑛 ] = 𝑐 1 E[𝑋1 ] + · · · + 𝑐 𝑛 E[𝑋𝑛 ].

This identity does not require any assumption of independence. On the other hand,
generally E[𝑋𝑌 ] ≠ E[𝑋]E[𝑌 ] unless 𝑋 and 𝑌 are uncorrelated (independent random
variables are always uncorrelated).
Here is a simple application (there are also much more involved solutions via enumer-
ation methods).

Question 2.0.1 (Expected number of fixed points)

What is the average number of fixed points of a uniform random permutation of an 𝑛
element set?

Solution. Let 𝑋𝑖 be the event that element 𝑖 ∈ [𝑛] is fixed. Then E[𝑋𝑖 ] = 1/𝑛. The
expected number of fixed points is

E[𝑋1 + · · · + 𝑋𝑛 ] = E[𝑋1 ] + · · · + E[𝑋𝑛 ] = 1. □

2.1 Hamiltonian paths in tournaments

We frequently use the following fact:
with positive probability, 𝑋 ≥ E[𝑋] (likewise for 𝑋 ≤ E[𝑋]).
A tournament is a directed complete graph. A Hamilton path in a directed graph is a
directed path that contains every vertex exactly once.

Question 2.1.1 (Number of Hamilton paths in a tournament)

What is the maximum (and minimum) number of Hamilton paths in an 𝑛-vertex
tournament?

17
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

The minimization problem is easier. The transitive tournament (i.e., respecting a fixed
linear ordering of vertices) has exactly one Hamilton path. On the other hand, every
tournament has at least one Hamilton path (Exercise: prove this! Hint: consider a
longest directed path).
The maximization problem is more difficult and interesting. Here we have some
asymptotic results.

Theorem 2.1.2 (Tournaments wit many Hamilton paths; Szele 1943)

There is a tournament on 𝑛 vertices with at least 𝑛!2−(𝑛−1) Hamilton paths

Proof. Consider a random tournament where every edge is given a random orientation
chosen uniformly and independently. Each of the 𝑛! permutations of vertices forms a
directed path with probability 2−𝑛+1 . So that expected number of Hamilton paths is
𝑛!2−𝑛+1 . Thus, there exists a tournament with at least this many Hamilton paths. □

This was considered the first use of the probabilistic method. Szele conjectured that the
maximum number of Hamilton paths in a tournament on 𝑛 players is 𝑛!/(2 − 𝑜(1)) 𝑛 .
This was proved by Alon (1990) using the Minc–Brégman theorem on permanents (we
will see this later in Chapter 10 on the entropy method).

2.2 Sum-free subset

A subset 𝐴 in an abelian group is sum-free if there do not exist 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐 ∈ 𝐴 with
𝑎 + 𝑏 = 𝑐.
Does every 𝑛-element set contain a large sum-free set?

Theorem 2.2.1 (Large sum-free subsets; Erdős 1965)

Every set of 𝑛 nonzero integers contains a sum-free subset of size ≥ 𝑛/3.

Proof. Let 𝐴 ⊆ Z \ {0} with | 𝐴| = 𝑛. For 𝜃 ∈ [0, 1], let

𝐴𝜃 := {𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 : {𝑎𝜃} ∈ (1/3, 2/3)}

where {·} denotes fractional part. Then 𝐴𝜃 is sum-free since (1/3, 2/3) is sum-free in
R/Z.
For 𝜃 uniformly chosen at random, {𝑎𝜃} is also uniformly random in [0, 1], so P(𝑎 ∈
𝐴𝜃 ) = 1/3. By linearity of expectations, E| 𝐴𝜃 | = 𝑛/3. □

18
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2.3 Turán’s theorem and independent sets

Remark 2.2.2 (Additional results). Alon and Kleitman (1990) noted that one can
improve the bound to ≥ (𝑛 + 1)/3 by noting that | 𝐴𝜃 | = 0 for 𝜃 close to zero (say,
|𝜃| < (3 max 𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 |𝑎|) −1 ), so that | 𝐴𝜃 | < 𝑛/3 with positive probability, and hence
| 𝐴𝜃 | > 𝑛/3 with positive probability. Note that since | 𝐴𝜃 | is an integer, being > 𝑛/3 is
the same as being ≥ (𝑛 + 1)/3.
Bourgain (1997) improved it to ≥ (𝑛 + 2)/3 via a difficult Fourier analytic argument.
This is currently the best lower bound known.
It remains an open problem to prove ≥ (𝑛 + 𝑓 (𝑛))/3 for some function 𝑓 (𝑛) → ∞.
In the other direction, Eberhard, Green, and Manners (2014) showed that there exist
𝑛-element sets of integers whose largest sum-free subset has size ≤ (1/3 + 𝑜(1))𝑛.

2.3 Turán’s theorem and independent sets

Question 2.3.1 (Turán problem)

What is the maximum number of edges in an 𝑛-vertex 𝐾 𝑘 -free graph?

Taking the complement of a graph changes its independent sets to cliques and vice
versa. So the problem is equivalent to one about graphs without large independent
sets.
The following result, due to Caro (1979) and Wei (1981), shows that a graph with
small degrees much contain large independent sets. The probabilistic method proof
shown here is due to Alon and Spencer.

Theorem 2.3.2 (Caro 1979, Wei 1981)

Every graph 𝐺 contains an independent set of size at least
∑︁ 1
,
𝑑𝑣 + 1
𝑣∈𝑉 (𝐺)

where 𝑑𝑣 is the degree of vertex 𝑣.

Proof. Consider a random ordering (permutation) of the vertices. Let 𝐼 be the set of
vertices that appear before all of its neighbors. Then 𝐼 is an independent set.
1
For each 𝑣 ∈ 𝑉, P(𝑣 ∈ 𝐼) = 1+𝑑 𝑣
(this is the probability that 𝑣 appears first among
{𝑣} ∪ 𝑁 (𝑣)). Thus E|𝐼 | = 𝑣∈𝑉 (𝐺) 𝑑 𝑣1+1 . Thus with positive probability, |𝐼 | is at least
Í

this expectation. □

Remark 2.3.3. Equality occurs if 𝐺 is a disjoint union of cliques.

19
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

Remark 2.3.4 (Derandomization). Here is an alternative “greedy algorithm” proof

of the Caro–Wei inequality. At each step, take a vertex of smallest degree, and remove
it and all its neighbors. If each vertex 𝑣 is assigned weight 1/(𝑑𝑣 + 1), then the total
Í
weight removed at each step is at most 1. Thus there must be at least 𝑣 1/(𝑑𝑣 + 1)
steps.
Some probabilistic proofs, especially those involving linearity of expectations, can be
derandomized this way into an efficient deterministic algorithm. However, for many
other proofs (such as Ramsey lower bounds from Section 1.1), it is not known how to
derandomize the proof.

By taking the complement of the graph, independent sets become cliques, and so we
obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 2.3.5
Every 𝑛-vertex graph 𝐺 contains a clique of size at least
∑︁ 1
.
𝑛 − 𝑑𝑣
𝑣∈𝑉 (𝐺)

Note that equality is attained when 𝐺 is multipartite.

Now let us answer the earlier question about maximizing the number of edges in a
𝐾𝑟+1 -free graph.
The Turán graph 𝑻𝒏,𝒓 is the complete multipartite graph formed by partitioning 𝑛
vertices into 𝑟 parts with sizes as equal as possible (differing by at most 1).
Example:

𝑇10,3 = 𝐾3,3,4 =

It is easy to see that 𝑇𝑛,𝑟 is 𝐾𝑟+1 -free.

Turán’s theorem (1941) tells us that 𝑇𝑛,𝑟 indeed maximizes the number of edges among
𝑛-vertex 𝐾𝑟+1 -free graphs. We will prove a slightly weaker statement, below, which is
tight when 𝑛 is divisible by 𝑟.

20
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2.4 Sampling

Theorem 2.3.6 (Turán’s theorem 1941)

The number of edges in an 𝑛-vertex 𝐾𝑟+1 -free graph is at most

1 𝑛2
 
1− .
𝑟 2

Proof. Let 𝑚 be the number of edges. Since 𝐺 is 𝐾𝑟+1 -free, by Corollary 2.3.5, the
size 𝜔(𝐺) of the largest clique of 𝐺 satisfies
∑︁ 1 𝑛 𝑛
𝑟 ≥ 𝜔(𝐺) ≥ ≥ = .
𝑛 − 𝑑𝑣 𝑛 − 𝑛 𝑣 𝑑𝑣 𝑛 − 2𝑚
1 Í
𝑣∈𝑉 𝑛
 
1 𝑛2
Rearranging gives 𝑚 ≤ 1 − 𝑟 2. □

Remark 2.3.7. By a careful refinement of the above argument, we can deduce Turán’s
theorem that 𝑇𝑛,𝑟 maximizes the number of edges in a 𝑛-vertex 𝐾𝑟+1 -free graph, by
Í 1 Í
noting that 𝑣∈𝑉 𝑛−𝑑 𝑣
is minimized over fixed 𝑣 𝑑 𝑣 when the degrees are nearly equal.

Also, Theorem 2.3.6 is asymptotically tight in the sense that the Turán graph 𝑇𝑛,𝑟 , for
fixed 𝑟 and 𝑛 → ∞, as (1 − 1/𝑟 − 𝑜(1))𝑛2 /2 edges.

For more on this topic, see Chapter 1 of my textbook Graph Theory and Additive
Combinatorics and the class with the same title.

2.4 Sampling
By Turán’s theorem (actually Mantel’s theorem, in this case for triangles, the maximum
number of edges in an 𝑛-vertex triangle-free graph is 𝑛2 /4 .
 

How about the problem for hypergraphs? A tetrahedron, denoted 𝐾4(3) , is a complete 3-
uniform hypergraph (3-graph) on 4 vertices (think of the faces of a usual 3-dimensional
tetrahedron).

Question 2.4.1 (Hypergraph Turán problem for tetrahra)

What is the maximum number of edges in an 𝑛-vertex 3-uniform hypergraph not
containing any tetrahedra?

This turns out to be a notorious open problem. Turán conjectured that the answer is
  
5 𝑛
+ 𝑜(1) ,
9 3

21
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

which can be achieved using the 3-graph illustrated below:

𝑉1

𝑉2 𝑉3

Above, the vertices are partitioned into three nearly equal sets 𝑉1 , 𝑉2 , 𝑉3 , and all the
edges come in two types: (i) with one vertex in each of the three parts, and (ii) two
vertices in 𝑉𝑖 and one vertex in 𝑉𝑖+1 , with the indices considered mod 3.
Let us give some easy upper bounds, in order to illustrate a simple yet important
technique of bounding by sampling.

Proposition 2.4.2 (A cheap sampling bound)

3 𝑛


Every tetrahedron-free 3-graph on 𝑛 ≥ 4 vertices has at most 4 3 edges.

Proof. Let 𝑆 be a 4-vertex subset chosen uniformly at random. If the graph has


𝑝 𝑛3 edges, then the expected number of edges induced by 𝑆 is 4𝑝 by linearity of
expectations (why?).
Since the 3-graph is tetrahedron-free, 𝑆 induces at most 3 edges. Therefore, 4𝑝 ≤ 3.
Thus the total number of edges is 𝑝 𝑛3 ≤ 34 𝑛3 .



□

Why stop at sampling four vertices? Can we do better by sampling five vertices? To
run the above argument, we will know how many edges can there be in a 5-vertex
tetrahedron-free graph.

Lemma 2.4.3
A 5-vertex tetrahedron-free 3-graph has at most 7 edges.

Proof. We can convert a 5-vertex 3-graph 𝐻 to a 5-vertex graph 𝐺, by replacing each

triple by its complement. Then 𝐻 being tetrahedron-free is equivalent to 𝐺 not having a
vertex of degree 4. The maximum number of edges in a 5-vertex graph with maximum
degree at most 3 is ⌊3 · 5/2⌋ = 7 (check this can be achieved). □

We can improve Proposition 2.4.2 by sampling 5 vertices instead of 4 in its proof. This
yields (check):

22
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2.5 Unbalancing lights

Proposition 2.4.4
7 𝑛


Every tetrahedron-free 3-graph on 𝑛 ≥ 4 vertices has at most 10 3 edges.

By sampling 𝑠 vertices and using brute-force search to solve the 𝑠-vertex problem,
we can improve the upper bound by taking larger values of 𝑠. In fact in principle, if
we had unlimited computational power, we can arbitrarily close to optimum by taking
sufficiently large 𝑠 (why?). However, this is not a practical method due to the cost of
the brute-force search. There are more clever ways to get better bounds (also with the
help of a computer). The best known upper bound notably via a method known as flag


algebras (using sums of squares) due to Razborov, which can give ≤ (0.561 · · · ) 𝑛3 ).
For more on the Hypergraph Turán problem, see the survey by Keevash (2011).

2.5 Unbalancing lights

Consider an 𝑛 × 𝑛 array of light bulbs. Initially some arbitrary subset of the light bulbs
are turned on. We are allowed up toggle the lights (on/off) for an entire row or column
at a time. How many lights can be guarantee to turn on?
If we flip each row/column independently with probability 1/2, then on expectation,
we get exactly half of the lights to turn on. Can we do better?
In the probabilistic method, not every step has to be random. A better strategy is to
first flip all the columns randomly, and then decide what to do with each row greedily
based on what has happened so far. This is captured in the following theorem, where
the left-hand side represents

# {bulbs on} − # {bulbs off} .

Theorem 2.5.1
Let 𝑎𝑖 𝑗 ∈ {−1, 1} for all 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ [𝑛]. There exists 𝑥𝑖 , 𝑦 𝑗 ∈ {−1, 1} for all 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ [𝑛] such
that √︂ !
𝑛
∑︁ 2
𝑎 𝑖 𝑗 𝑥𝑖 𝑦 𝑗 ≥ + 𝑜(1) 𝑛3/2 .
𝑖, 𝑗=1
𝜋

Proof. Choose 𝑦 1 , . . . , 𝑦 𝑛 ∈ {−1, 1} independently and uniformly at random. For each

𝑖, let
𝑛
∑︁
𝑅𝑖 = 𝑎𝑖 𝑗 𝑦 𝑗
𝑗=1

23
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

and set 𝑥𝑖 ∈ {−1, 1} to be the sign of 𝑅𝑖 (arbitrarily choose 𝑥𝑖 if 𝑅𝑖 = 0. Then the LHS
sum is
𝑛
∑︁ 𝑛
∑︁
𝑅𝑖 𝑥𝑖 = |𝑅𝑖 | .
𝑖=1 𝑖=1

For each 𝑖, 𝑅𝑖 has the same distribution as a sum of 𝑛 i.i.d. uniform {−1, 1}: 𝑆𝑛 =
𝜀1 + · · · + 𝜀 𝑛 (note that 𝑅𝑖 ’s are not independent for different 𝑖’s). Thus, for each 𝑖
√︂ !
2 √
E[|𝑅𝑖 |] = E[|𝑆𝑛 |] = + 𝑜(1) 𝑛,
𝜋

since by the central limit theorem

 
|𝑆𝑛 |
lim E √ = E[|𝑋 |] where 𝑋 ∼ Normal(0, 1)
𝑛→∞ 𝑛
∫ √︂
1 −𝑥 2 /2 2
=√ |𝑥|𝑒 𝑑𝑥 =
2𝜋 R 𝜋

(one can also use binomial sum identities to compute exactly: E[|𝑆𝑛 |] = 𝑛21−𝑛 𝑛−1

⌊(𝑛−1)/2⌋ ,
though it is rather unnecessary to do so.) Thus
𝑛
√︂ !
∑︁ 2
E |𝑅𝑖 | = + 𝑜(1) 𝑛3/2 .
𝑖=1
𝜋
√︃ 
2
Thus with positive probability, the sum is ≥ 𝜋 + 𝑜(1) 𝑛3/2 . □

The next example is tricky. The proof will set up a probabilistic process where the
parameters are not given explicitly. A compactness argument will show that a good
choice of parameters exists.

Theorem 2.5.2
Let 𝑘 ≥ 2. Let 𝑉 = 𝑉1 ∪ · · · ∪ 𝑉𝑘 , where 𝑉1 , . . . , 𝑉𝑘 are disjoint sets of size 𝑛. The
edges of the complete 𝑘-uniform hypergraph on 𝑉 are colored with red/blue. Suppose
that every edge formed by taking one vertex from each 𝑉1 , . . . , 𝑉𝑘 is colored blue.
Then there exists 𝑆 ⊆ 𝑉 such that the number of red edges and blue edges in 𝑆 differ
by more than 𝑐 𝑘 𝑛 𝑘 , where 𝑐 𝑘 > 0 is a constant.

Proof. We will write this proof for 𝑘 = 3 for notational simplicity. The same proof
works for any 𝑘.
Let 𝑝 1 , 𝑝 2 , 𝑝 3 be real numbers to be decided. We are going to pick 𝑆 randomly by

24
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2.6 Crossing number inequality

including each vertex in 𝑉𝑖 with probability 𝑝𝑖 , independently. Let

𝑎𝑖, 𝑗,𝑘 = #{blue edges in 𝑉𝑖 × 𝑉 𝑗 × 𝑉𝑘 } − #{red edges in 𝑉𝑖 × 𝑉 𝑗 × 𝑉𝑘 }.

Then
E[#{blue edges in 𝑆} − #{red edges in 𝑆}]
equals to some polynomial
∑︁
𝑓 ( 𝑝1, 𝑝2, 𝑝3) = 𝑎𝑖, 𝑗,𝑘 𝑝𝑖 𝑝 𝑗 𝑝 𝑘 = 𝑛3 𝑝 1 𝑝 2 𝑝 3 + 𝑎 1,1,1 𝑝 31 + 𝑎 1,1,2 𝑝 21 𝑝 2 + · · · .
𝑖≤ 𝑗 ≤𝑘

(note that 𝑎 1,2,3 = 𝑛3 by hypothesis). We would be done if we can find 𝑝 1 , 𝑝 2 , 𝑝 3 ∈

[0, 1] such that | 𝑓 ( 𝑝 1 , 𝑝 2 , 𝑝 3 )| > 𝑐 for some constant 𝑐 > 0 (not depending on the
𝑎𝑖, 𝑗,𝑘 ’s). Note that |𝑎𝑖, 𝑗,𝑘 | ≤ 𝑛3 . We are done after the following lemma

Lemma 2.5.3
Let 𝑃 𝑘 denote the set of polynomials 𝑔( 𝑝 1 , . . . , 𝑝 𝑘 ) of degree 𝑘, whose coefficients
have absolute value ≤ 1, and the coefficient of 𝑝 1 𝑝 2 · · · 𝑝 𝑘 is 1. Then there is a
constant 𝑐 𝑘 > 0 such that for all 𝑔 ∈ 𝑃 𝑘 , there is some 𝑝 1 , . . . , 𝑝 𝑘 ∈ [0, 1] with
|𝑔( 𝑝 1 , . . . , 𝑝 𝑘 )| ≥ 𝑐.

Proof of Lemma. Set 𝑀 (𝑔) = sup 𝑝1 ,...,𝑝 𝑘 ∈[0,1] |𝑔( 𝑝 1 , . . . , 𝑝 𝑘 )| (note that sup is achieved
as max due to compactness). For 𝑔 ∈ 𝑃 𝑘 , since 𝑔 is nonzero (its coefficient of
𝑝 1 𝑝 2 · · · 𝑝 𝑘 is 1), we have 𝑀 (𝑔) > 0. As 𝑃 𝑘 is compact and 𝑀 : 𝑃 𝑘 → R is continuous,
𝑀 attains a minimum value 𝑐 = 𝑀 (𝑔) > 0 for some 𝑔 ∈ 𝑃 𝑘 . ■ □

2.6 Crossing number inequality

Consider drawings of graphs on a plane using continuous curves as edges.
The crossing number cr(𝑮) is the minimum number of crossings in a drawing of 𝐺.
A graph is planar if cr(𝐺) = 0.
The graphs 𝐾3,3 and 𝐾5 are non-planar. Furthermore, the following theorem charac-
terizes these two graphs as the only obstructions to planarity:
Kuratowski’s theorem (1930). Every non-planar graph contains a subgraph that is
topologically homeomorphic to 𝐾3,3 or 𝐾5 .
Wagner’s theorem (1937). A graph is planar if and only if it does not have 𝐾3,3 or 𝐾5
as a minor.

25
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

(It is not too hard to show that Wagner’s theorem and Kuratowski’s theorem are
equivalent)
If a graph has a lot of edges, is it guaranteed to have a lot of crossings no matter how
it is drawn in the plane?

Question 2.6.1
What is the minimum possible number of crossings that a drawing of:
• 𝐾𝑛 ? (Hill’s conjecture)
• 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ? (Zarankiewicz conjecture; Turán’s brick factory problem)
• a graph on 𝑛 vertices and 𝑛2 /100 edges?

The following result, due to Ajtai–Chvátal–Newborn–Szemerédi (1982) and Leighton

(1984), lower bounds the number of crossings for graphs with many edges.

Theorem 2.6.2 (Crossing number inequality)

In a graph 𝐺 = (𝑉, 𝐸), if |𝐸 | ≥ 4|𝑉 |, then

|𝐸 | 3
cr(𝐺) ≳ .
|𝑉 | 2

Remark 2.6.3. The constant 4 in |𝐸 | ≥ 4 |𝑉 | can be replaced by any constant greater

than 3 (at the cost of changing the constant in the conclusion). On the other hand,
by considering a large triangular grid, we get a planar graph with average degree
arbitrarily close to 6.

Corollary 2.6.4
In a graph 𝐺 = (𝑉, 𝐸), if |𝐸 | ≳ |𝑉 | 2 , then cr(𝐺) ≳ |𝑉 | 4 .

Proof. The proof has three steps, starting with some basic facts on planar graphs.

Step 1: From zero to one.

Recall Euler’s formula: 𝑣 − 𝑒 + 𝑓 = 2 for every connected planar drawing of graph.
Here 𝑣 is the number of vertices, 𝑒 the number of edges, and 𝑓 the number of faces
(connected components of the complement of the drawing, including the outer infinite
region).
For every connected planar graph with at least one cycle, 3|𝐹 | ≤ 2|𝐸 | since every face
is adjacent to ≥ 3 edges, whereas every edge is adjacent to exactly 2 faces. Plugging
into Euler’s formula, |𝐸 | ≤ 3|𝑉 | − 6.

26
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2.6 Crossing number inequality

Thus |𝐸 | ≤ 3|𝑉 | for all planar graphs. Hence cr(𝐺) > 0 whenever |𝐸 | > 3|𝑉 |.
Step 2: From one to many.
The above argument gives us one crossing. Next, we will use it to obtain many
crossings.
By deleting one edge for each crossing, we get a planar graph, so |𝐸 | − cr(𝐺) ≤ 3|𝑉 |,
that is
cr(𝐺) ≥ |𝐸 | − 3|𝑉 |.
This is a “cheap bound.” For graphs with |𝐸 | = Θ(𝑛2 ), this gives cr(𝐺) ≳ 𝑛2 . This is
not a great bound. We next will use the probabilistic method to boost this bound.
Step 3: Bootstrapping.
Let 𝑝 ∈ [0, 1] to be decided. Let 𝐺 ′ = (𝑉 ′, 𝐸 ′) be obtained from 𝐺 by randomly
keeping each vertex with probability 𝑝. Then

cr(𝐺 ′) ≥ |𝐸 ′ | − 3|𝑉 ′ |.

So
E cr(𝐺 ′) ≥ E|𝐸 ′ | − 3E|𝑉 ′ |
We have E cr(𝐺 ′) ≤ 𝑝 4 cr(𝐺), E|𝐸 ′ | = 𝑝 2 |𝐸 | and E|𝑉 ′ | = 𝑝E|𝑉 |. So

𝑝 4 cr(𝐺) ≥ 𝑝 2 |𝐸 | − 3𝑝|𝑉 |.

Thus
cr(𝐺) ≥ 𝑝 −2 |𝐸 | − 3𝑝 −3 |𝑉 |.
Setting 𝑝 = 4 |𝑉 | /|𝐸 | ∈ [0, 1] (here is where we use the hypothesis that |𝐸 | ≥ 4 |𝑉 |)
so that 4𝑝 −3 |𝑉 | = 𝑝 −2 |𝐸 |, we obtain cr(𝐺) ≳ |𝐸 | 3 /|𝑉 | 2 . □

Remark 2.6.5. The above idea of boosting a cheap bound to a better bound is an
important one. We saw a version of this idea in Section 2.4 where we sampled a
constant number of vertices to deduce upper bounds on the hypergraph Turán num-
ber. In the above crossing number inequality application, we are also applying some
preliminary cheap bound to some sampled induced subgraph, though this time the
sampled subgraph has super-constant size.
It is tempting to modify the proof by sampling edges instead of vertices, but this does
not work.

27
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

2 Linearity of Expectations

Exercises
1. Let 𝐴 be a measurable subset of the unit sphere in R3 (centered at the origin)
containing no pair of orthogonal points.
a) Prove that 𝐴 occupies at most 1/3 of the sphere in terms of surface area.
b) ★ Prove an upper bound smaller than 1/3 (give your best bound).
2. ★ Prove that every set of 10 points in the plane can be covered by a union of
disjoint unit disks.
3. Let r = (𝑟 1 , . . . , 𝑟 𝑘 ) be a vector of nonzero integers whose sum is nonzero.
Prove that there exists a real 𝑐 > 0 (depending on r only) such that the following
holds: for every finite set 𝐴 of nonzero reals, there exists a subset 𝐵 ⊆ 𝐴 with
|𝐵| ≥ 𝑐| 𝐴| such that there do not exist 𝑏 1 , . . . , 𝑏 𝑘 ∈ 𝐵 with 𝑟 1 𝑏 1 + · · · + 𝑟 𝑘 𝑏 𝑘 = 0.
4. Prove that every set 𝐴 of 𝑛 nonzero integers contains two disjoint subsets 𝐵1 and
𝐵2 , such that both 𝐵1 and 𝐵2 are sum-free, and |𝐵1 | + |𝐵2 | > 2𝑛/3.
5. Let 𝐺 be an 𝑛-vertex graph with 𝑝𝑛2 edges, with 𝑛 ≥ 10 and 𝑝 ≥ 10/𝑛.
Prove that 𝐺 contains a pair of vertex-disjoint and isomorphic subgraphs (not
necessarily induced) each with at least 𝑐 𝑝 2 𝑛2 edges, where 𝑐 > 0 is a constant.
6. ★ Prove that for every positive integer 𝑟, there exists an integer 𝐾 such that the
following holds. Let 𝑆 be a set of 𝑟 𝑘 points evenly spaced on a circle. If we
partition 𝑆 = 𝑆1 ∪ · · · ∪ 𝑆𝑟 so that |𝑆𝑖 | = 𝑘 for each 𝑖, then, provided 𝑘 ≥ 𝐾,
there exist 𝑟 congruent triangles where the vertices of the 𝑖-th triangle lie in 𝑆𝑖 ,
for each 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑟.
7. ★ Prove that [𝑛] 𝑑 cannot be partitioned into fewer than 2𝑑 sets each of the form
𝐴1 × · · · × 𝐴𝑑 where 𝐴𝑖 ⊊ [𝑛].

28
MIT OpenCourseWare
https://ocw.mit.edu

18.226 Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics

Fall 2022

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: https://ocw.mit.edu/terms.