Saturation Problems in Convex Geometric Hypergraphs
Jason O’Neill ∗ Sam Spiro†
September 22, 2021
Abstract
A convex geometric hypergraph (abbreviated cgh) consists of a collection of subsets of a strictly convex set of points in the plane. Extremal problems for cgh’s have been extensively studied in the literature, and in this paper we consider their corresponding saturation problems. We asymptotically determine the saturation number of two geometrically disjoint r-tuples. Further, amongst the eight nonisomorphic 3-uniform cgh’s on two edges, we determine the saturation number for seven of these up to order of magnitude and the eighth up to a log factor.
1 Introduction
A convex geometric hypergraph (abbreviated cgh) H is a collection of subsets (called edges) of a set of vertices Ωn= {v0, . . . , vn−1} such that the vertices have a cyclic ordering v0 < v1 < · · · < vn−1 < v0. It is convenient to view Ωn as the vertices of a circle in the plane with cyclic ordering based on the order they appear as one travels clockwise along the circle. Two cgh’s H, H0 are considered to be isomorphic if there exists a bijection between their vertex sets which respects their cyclic orderings and which induces a bijection between their edges. We say that H is r-uniform or an r-cgh if every h ∈ H is of size r. Extremal problems on convex geometric hypergraphs have been extensively studied [1, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24] in the literature. In this paper, we explore saturation problems in the convex geometric setting.
The study of saturation problems was initiated by Erd˝os, Hajnal, and Moon [7] who determined the saturation number of graph cliques. Bollob´as [3] extended this result to complete k-graphs. Pikhurko [25] further studied upper bounds on the saturation number of finite classes of hypergraphs as well as the corresponding problems in the ordered hypergraph setting. For more on saturation problems and their history, see the survey [9] and the references there within.
∗Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0112, USA.
E-mail:[email protected]. Research supported by NSF award DMS-1800332.
†Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0112, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1650112.
arXiv:2109.09931v1 [math.CO] 21 Sep 2021
Given a cgh F , we say that H is F -free if H does not contain a subhypergraph isomorphic to F . Let the extremal function ex(n, F ) denote the maximum number of edges in an F -free r-cgh on n points. We say that H is F -saturated if H is F -free and if for all e ∈ Ωrn \ H, adding the edge e to H creates a copy of F . Let the saturation function sat(n, F ) denote the minimum number of edges in an F -saturated r-cgh on n points. Let M1(r) be the r-cgh consisting of two geometrically disjoint edges.
That is, M1(r) has edges {v0, . . . , vr−1} and {vr, . . . , v2r−1} with the ordering v0 < · · · < v2r−1 < v0; see Figure 1 for a picture of M1(3).
In the classical extremal set theory setting, M1(r) is a matching of size two, for which the extremal function is determined by the Erd˝os-Ko-Rado theorem [8] and the saturation number is bounded above in a few cases by F¨uredi [12]. For n large enough, these results give
ex(n, M1(r)) =n − 1 r − 1
and sat(n, M1(r)) ≤ 3r2 4
where the upper-bound on the saturation number holds when there exists a projective plane of order r/2. In the convex geometric setting, determining ex(n, M1(r)) was asked in [11] and determined exactly in [16] when r = 3. In this paper we show that asymptotically, sat(n, M1(r)) is achieved by an r-cgh H which consist of a star (i.e. every r-set containing a given vertex) together with a few extra edges. This is perhaps surprising given that, in the classical setting, the star is the largest M1(r)-saturated r-uniform hypergraph.
To be more precise, for vi, vj ∈ Ωn we define the interval (vi, vj) = {vk: vi< vk < vj < vi}. Similarly define, for example, [vi, vj] = (vi, vj) ∪ {vi, vj}. Let
Hn(r)= {h ∈Ωn r
: v0 ∈ h} ∪
r−1
[
j=1
{h ∈Ωn r
: vj ∈ h, h ∩ [v−r+j, vn−1] 6= ∅}, (1)
For example, Hn(2)consists of the star on v0 together with the edge {v1, vn−1}, and Hn(3) consists of the star on v0 together with every triple containing {v1, vn−2},{v1, vn−1}, or {v2, vn−1}. We will show that Hn(r) is M1(r)-saturated with |Hn(r)| ∼ r−1n . This will give the upper bound to the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1. For all r ≥ 2,
sat(n, M1(r)) ∼
n r − 1
.
Moreover, every maximal M1(2)-saturated 2-cgh has n edges, and for n ≥ 6 we have
sat(n, M1(3)) =n − 1 2
+ 3n − 11,
and Hn(3) the unique 3-cgh up to isomorphism achieving this bound when n > 6.
We note that the bound n > 6 is best possible, as in general for n ≤ 2r every M1(r)-saturated cgh has the same number of edges. A key tool in proving Theorem 1.1 is a structural result characterizing all M1(r)-saturated cgh’s. See Theorem 3.2 for a precise statement of this result.
In this paper, we also consider sat(n, F ) for all other two edge r-cgh when r ≤ 3. There exists three nonisomorphic 2-cghs with two edges: G0 consisting of a vertex of degree two, G1 consisting of two disjoint edges which cross, and G2consisting of two disjoint edges which do not cross. It is not difficult to see that sat(n, G0) = bn/2c, and sat(n, G1) = 2n − 3 since any G1-saturated 2-cgh must be a maximal outerplanar graph. By Theorem 1.1, it follows that sat(n, G2) = n.
There are eight nonisomorphic 3-cghs with two edges, and these are depicted in Figure 1. F¨uredi, Mubayi, Verstraete and the first author [16] recently determined the extremal numbers of seven of these eight configurations asymptotically.
Figure 1: The eight 3-cgh’s with two edges.
We are able to determine the order of magnitude for the saturation number of seven of these configu- rations, and the saturation number of the eighth configuration up to a log factor:
Theorem 1.2.
sat(n, F ) =
Θ(n) if F ∈ {M2, S1, S2} Θ(n2) if F ∈ {M1, M3, D1, D2}.
Further,
Ω(n) = sat(n, S3) = O(n log2n)
Organization and Notation We prove Theorem 1.2 in Section 2 and prove Theorem 1.1 in Section 3. In the Appendix we use more involved arguments to get sharper asymptotic bounds on sat(n, F ) for the 3-cgh’s F considered in Theorem 1.2.
We let Ωn denote a set of cyclically ordered points {v0 < . . . < vn−1 < v0}. We use capital letters to denote cghs and lower case letters to denote their edges. As much as possible we use the convention that edges of H are denoted by h, and that e denotes an arbitrary set which may or may not be in H. Given a cgh H ⊂ Ωrn and a vertex vi ∈ Ωn, let dH(vi) := |{h ∈ H : vi ∈ h}| denote the degree of vi in H. For functions f, g : N → R+, we write f = o(g) if limn→∞f (n)/g(n) = 0, and f = O(g) if there is c > 0 such that f (n) ≤ cg(n) for all n ∈ N. If f = O(g) and g = O(f ), we write f = Θ(g).
2 Proof of Theorem 1.2
In this section we prove Theorem 1.2, establishing the order of magnitude of sat(n, F ) for every F 6= S3 which is a 3-uniform cgh on two edges. Throughout the proof we do not concern ourselves with trying to optimize our asymptotic bounds, and we refer the reader to the Appendix for a discussion on how to obtain sharper estimates. We first show the following general result.
Proposition 2.1. Let F be a finite collection of r-uniform cgh’s. Then sat(n, F ) = O(nr−1).
For this proof we utilize ordered hypergraphs, which are defined exactly the same as cgh’s except with a linear ordering of their vertex set.
Proof. For H ⊆ Ωrn an r-cgh, let−→
H be the r-uniform ordered hypergraph obtained from H by giving Ωn the linear ordering v0 < v1 < · · · < vn−1.
Claim 2.2. There exists a finite collection F0 of ordered r-uniform hypergraphs such that H ⊆ Ωrn is F -saturated as an r-cgh if and only if −→
H is F0-saturated as an r-uniform ordered hypergraph.
Proof. For simplicity we prove the result only when F = {F }. If F is a cgh on U = {u1 < u2 <
· · · < uk < u1}, let Fi be the ordered r-uniform hypergraph obtained from F by giving U the linear ordering ui < ui+1 < · · · < uk < u1 < · · · < ui−1. It then follows that H is F -free if and only if −→
H is {F1, . . . , Fk}-free. In particular, H is F -saturated if and only if−→
H is {F1, . . . , Fk}-saturated. 2 In [25], Pikhurko proved that every finite collection of r-uniform ordered hypergraphs F0has saturation number O(nr−1). This combined with the claim above gives the result. 2 With this we can now prove Theorem 1.2.
Proof of Theorem 1.2 assuming Theorem 1.1. The result for M1 is dealt with in Theorem 1.1, so it suffices to consider the remaining cases.
Lower bounds. Observe that if H is S1 or S2-free and has three isolated vertices u, v, w, then H + {u, v, w} is still S1 or S2-free. Thus every S1 or S2-saturated cgh has at most 2 isolated vertices, which proves sat(n, Si) ≥ (n − 2)/3 for i = 1, 2.
Note that any M2-saturated or S3-saturated cgh H has {vi, vi+1, vi+2} ∈ H, since such an edge can never be used to form an M2 or S3. Thus sat(n, M2), sat(n, S3) ≥ n. Similarly every M3-saturated cgh contains every edge of the form {vi, vi+1, vj} with j 6= i, i+1, which proves sat(n, M3) ≥ n(n − 3).
To deal with Di, let Gi be the graph with V (Gi) = Ω3n such that e, f ∈ Ω3n form an edge if {e, f } are isomorphic to Di as cgh’s. Given a Di-saturated cgh H ⊂ Ω3n, it follows that NGi(H) = Ω3n \ H.
It is straightforward to check that dG1(e) = n − 3 for all e ∈ Ω3n (i.e., every e ∈ Ω3n forms a D1 with exactly n − 3 other f ∈ Ω3n), so if H is D1-saturated,
|H| · (n − 3) ≥ NG1(H) =n 3
− |H|,
which implies
sat(n, D1) ≥ n(n − 1)
6 .
Similarly we have dG2(e) = 2(n − 3) for all e ∈ Ω3n, which gives
sat(n, D2) ≥ n(n − 1)(n − 2) 6(2n − 5) ∼ n2
12.
Upper bounds. The quadratic upper bounds for M3, D1, D2 follow from Proposition 2.1. For S2, take H to be the cgh consisting of all edges of the form {vi, vi+1, vi+2}. For n ≥ 4, H is S2-saturated which show sat(n, S2) ≤ n. The remaining constructions will be slightly more complicated.
Claim 2.3. sat(n, S2) ≤ n + O(1).
Proof. Let n = 4q + k with q ≥ 1 and 0 ≤ k < 4. We will define an S2-saturated cgh H ⊂ Ω3n which has q components H0, . . . , Hq−1. For 1 ≤ ` ≤ q − 1, let H` consist of the complete 3-cgh on {v4`+k, v4`+k+1, v4`+k+2, v4`+k+3}. Let H00 be the cgh on Ω4+k consisting of the complete 3-cgh on Ω4 = {v0, v1, v2, v3} and all edges of the form {v1, v2, vi} for 3 ≤ i ≤ 3 + k, and let H0 ⊇ H00 be any S2-saturated cgh on Ω4+k which contains the cgh H0. It is straightforward to check that H = H0∪ · · · ∪ Hq−1⊂ Ω3n is S2-free and |H| = n + O(1).
Seeking to prove that H is S2-saturated, it suffices to check 3-sets which meet at least two components since each component of H is S2-saturated. Let e = {vi, vj, vk} /∈ H, and without loss of generality assume vi is in a component H` with vj, vk ∈ H/ `. It is not hard to check that there exists an edge h ∈ H` such that vi ∈ h with i either the smallest or largest index of a vertex in h. Without loss of generality we can assume h = {vi, vx, vy} ∈ H` with vi< vx < vy < vi. This means {e, h} forms an S2 since vi < vx< vy < vj, vk< vi and hence H is S2-saturated as desired. 2 Claim 2.4. sat(n, M2) ≤ 3n − 2.
Proof. For n ≥ 6, define H = C ∪ H1∪ H2∪ H3 where
C = {{vi, vi+1, vi+2} : 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1}; H1 = {e ∈Ωn 3
: {v1, v4} ⊂ e}
H2 = {e ∈Ωn
3
: {v0, v1} ⊂ e}; H3 = {{v1, v3, v5}, {v0, v2, v4}, {v0, v4, v5}, {v1, v2, v5}}.
It is straightforward to see that |H| = n + (n − 2) + (n − 4) + 4 = 3n − 2. One can check that every disjoint pair of edges of H lies in C ∪ H3 and that these pairs only form M1’s and M3’s. Thus H is M2-free. To see that H is M2-saturated, let e ∈ Ω3n \ H and consider h = {v0, v1, v4}.
Case 1: We have |e ∩ h| = 2. Since e /∈ H1∪ H2 ⊆ H, we necessarily have {v0, v4} ⊂ e, and hence e forms an M2 with {v1, v2, v5} ∈ H.
Case 2: We have |e ∩ h| = 1, say with v0 ∈ e (which means v1, v4∈ e). If e ∩ {v/ 2, v3} = ∅, then it is not hard to see that e forms an M2 with {v1, v4, vx} for an appropriately chosen vx since e /∈ C. We next deal with the subcase e ∩ {v2, v3} 6= ∅. If e = {v0, v2, v3}, then this forms an M2 with {v1, v4, v5}. If
e = {v0, v2, vx} with x 6= 3, then this forms an M2 with {v1, v3, v4}, and if e = {v0, v3, vx} with x 6= 2 this forms an M2 with {v1, v2, v4}. This deals with all the possible cases with v0 ∈ A. The cases for v1 ∈ A and v4∈ e can be similarly worked out.
Case 3: We have e ∩ h = ∅. Then e forms an M2 with {v0, v1, v4} unless A ∩ {v0, . . . , v5} = ∅. In the latter case, e forms an M2 with {v1, v4, vx} for an appropriately chosen vx. 2 Claim 2.5. sat(n, S3) ≤ 3n log2n.
Proof. We define an n-vertex S3-saturated cgh Hn inductively as follows. For n = 0, 1, 2 the cgh Hn is empty. For larger n, we start by defining Hn0 to consist of a copy of Hbn/2c−1 placed in (v0, vbn/2c), a copy of Hdn/2e−1 placed in (vbn/2c, v0), and every edge containing {v0, vbn/2c}. It is not difficult to see that Hn0 is S3-free, and we let Hn consist of any S3-saturated cgh containing Hn0.
Some casework1 shows if e ∈ Hn\ Hn0, then either e = {vn−1, v0, v1}, e = {vbn/2c−1, vbn/2c, vbn/2c+1}, or e = {vi, vj, vj+1} with i = 0, bn/2c and j 6= n − 1, 0, bn/2c − 1, bn/2c. Thus if f (n) := |Hn|,
f (n) ≤ 3n + f (bn/2c − 1) + f (dn/2e − 1).
We now prove by induction that f (n) ≤ 3n log2(n) for all n, the base cases for n ≤ 2 being trivial. By the recursive formula above,
f (n) ≤ 3n + 3 bn/2c log2(bn/2c) + 3(dn/2e − 1) log2(dn/2e − 1) ≤ 3n + 3n log2(n/2) = 3n log2n.
We conclude that |Hn| = f (n) ≤ 3n log2(n), proving the result. 2 This establishes the desired order of magnitude for each F , proving the result. 2
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1
If C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) is a (2` + 1)-tuple of distinct vertices of Ωn with ` ≥ 1 such that w1< w3 < w5 < · · · < w2`+1< w2 < w4 < · · · < w2`< w1,
then we define
Hn(r)(C) := {e ∈Ωn r
: e ∩ [wi, wi−1] 6= ∅ ∀i ∈ [2` + 1]},
where here and throughout we write the indices of the wi modulo 2` + 1. As a warmup, we will show all M1(2)-saturated 2-cgh’s are an odd cycles together with a set of leaves.
Lemma 3.1. Let C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) with w1 < w3< . . . < w2`+1< w2 < . . . < w2`< w1 ∈ Ωn. The cgh Hn(2)(C) consists of all of the edges {wi, wi+1} for 1 ≤ i ≤ 2` + 1, together with every edge {vj, wi} for vj ∈ (wi−1, wi+1) and in particular, every Hn(2)(C) has exactly n edges.
1If e ⊆ (v0, vbn/2c) then this would give a contradiction since Hbn/2c−1is S3-saturated. A similar argument holds for e ⊆ (vbn/2c, v0), and every other case follows by considering an appropriate edge containing {v1, vbn/2c}.
Figure 2: For the five tuple C = (w1, w2, w3, w4, w5), the edges of Hn(r)(C) intersects each of the five dashed intervals. In particular, Hn(r)(C) contains every r-set which contains one of the black edges.
Proof. We first claim that the neighborhood of every wi vertex is [wi−1, wi+1], and by the symmetry of the definitions it suffices to prove this when i = 1. Observe that w1 is not contained in the intervals [w3, w2] nor [w2`+1, w2`], so every neighbor of w1 must lie in [w3, w2] ∩ [w2`+1, w2`] = [w2`+1, w2].
We claim that any pair {w1, vj} with vj ∈ [w2`+1, w2] intersects any interval [wi, wi−1]. Indeed, w1 ∈ [wi, wi−1] if i is even and vj ∈ [wi, wi−1] if i is odd. This proves that the neighbors of w1, and hence of every wi, are as claimed.
Next consider vj ∈ (w2`+1, w2). We claim that the unique neighbor of vj is w1. Indeed, any neighbor of vj must be in [w2, w1] ∩ [w1, w2`+1] = {w1}, and the analysis above shows that this is indeed a neighbor. Again the symmetry of the situation shows that every vj ∈ (wi−1, wi+1) is adjacent to wi
and no other vertices. This proves the result. 2
Our main tool for this section is the following characterization of M1(r)-saturated cgh’s.
Theorem 3.2. Let r ≥ 2 and n ≥ 2r. An r-cgh H ⊂ Ωrn is M1(r)-saturated if and only if H = Hn(r)(C) for some C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) with ` ≥ 1, w1 < w3 < . . . < w2`+1 < w2 < . . . < w2` < w1, and
|[wi, wi−1]| ≥ r for all i.
The backwards direction of this statement is relatively easy to prove.
Lemma 3.3. Let C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) with w1 < w3 < . . . < w2`+1 < w2 < . . . < w2` < w1 ∈ Ωn. If
|[wi, wi−1]| ≥ r for all i, then Hn(r)(C) is M1(r)-saturated.
Proof. Let H = Hn(r)(C). Assume for contradiction that there exist distinct h1, h2 ∈ H forming an M1(r), say with h1 ⊆ [v1, vj] and h2 ⊆ (vj, v1). Because h1, h2 ∈ H, for all i we must have h1, h2 ∩ [wi, wi−1] 6= ∅, and hence either wi ∈ [v1, vj] and wi−1 ∈ (vj, v1), or wi−1 ∈ [v1, vj] and wi ∈ (vj, v1). If, say, w2`+1∈ [v1, vj], then it is straightforward to prove by induction that wi∈ [v1, vj] for all odd i, but this implies w2`+1= w1−1∈ (vj, v1), a contradiction. Thus H is M1(r)-free.
Consider any e ∈ Ωrn \ H. By definition there must exist some i such that e ∩ [wi, wi−1] = ∅, and without loss of generality we can assume i = 1. Let e0 be any r-set containing w1, w2`+1 and with e0 ⊆ [w1, w2`+1], which exists by hypothesis. It is not difficult to see that e0 ∩ [wi0, wi0−1] 6= ∅ for any i0 since w1, w2`+1 ∈ e0, so e0 ∈ H. Because e ∩ [w1, w2`+1] = ∅, this set forms an M1(r) with
e0 ⊆ [w1, w2`+1]. As e was an arbitrary non-edge, we conclude that H is M1(r)-saturated. 2 In the upcoming subsection we prove the forward direction of Theorem 3.2. Given this theorem, determining sat(n, M1(r)) is equivalent to determining min |Hn(r)(C)| with C as in Theorem 3.2. This reduces to a complicated optimization problem, which is (asymptotically) solved in Subsection 3.2.
3.1 Proof of Theorem 3.2 We introduce the notion of “nearest leftmost” and “nearest rightmost”
neighbors of a vertex vi ∈ Ωn in an M1(r)-saturated cgh. More precisely, given a vertex vi ∈ Ωn and an M1(r)-saturated H with dH(vi) > 0, define λ(vi) to be the unique vertex vj such that there exists h ∈ H with vi ∈ h and h ⊆ [vj, vi] and such that there does not exists an edge h ∈ H with vi ∈ h and h ⊆ [vj+1, vi]. Similarly define ρ(vi) to be the unique vertex vj such that there exists h ∈ H with vi ∈ h and h ⊆ [vi, vj] but there does not exist such an edge contained in [vi, vj−1].
Figure 3: A depiction of the case r = 3 with λ(vi) = vj and ρ(vi) = vy. We first show some properties of λ(vi) and ρ(vi) in M1(r)-saturated cgh’s.
Proposition 3.4. Let H ⊂ Ωrn be M1(r)-saturated with n ≥ 2r. Then the following hold:
(1) Every vi ∈ Ωn has positive degree. In particular, λ(vi), ρ(vi) are always well defined.
(2) For all vi ∈ Ωn, λ(vi) /∈ [vi−r+2, vi+r−1] and ρ(vi) /∈ [vi−r+1, vi+r−2].
(3) For all vi ∈ Ωn, λ(vi) < vi < ρ(vi) ≤ λ(vi).
(4) If vj ∈ [ρ(vi), λ(vi)], then every e ∈ Ωrn with {vi, vj} ⊆ e is an edge in H.
Proof. We first prove (1). Assume d(vi) = 0. Let u1∈ Ωnbe the unique vertex of positive degree such that [vi, u1) contains no vertex of positive degree. Let h = {u1 < u2 < · · · < ur< u1} ∈ H be so that ur = ρ(u1) and consider e = h \ {u1} ∪ {vi}. Note e /∈ H and hence there exist h0 ∈ H forming an M1(r) with e, i.e. which lies in one of the intervals (vi, u2), (u2, u3), . . . , (ur, vi). Because h0 does not form an M1(r) with h, we can not have h0⊆ (uj, uj+1) for any j nor h0⊆ (ur, u1) ⊆ (ur, vi), and hence h0 ⊆ (vi, u2). Since every vertex in (vi, u1) has degree 0, and because h0 6⊆ (u1, u2), we must have u1 ∈ h0 and h0 ⊆ [u1, u2). Because u1 ∈ h0 ⊆ [u1, u2) ( [u1, ur], this edge contradicts the assumption ρ(u1) = ur, proving the result.
We next prove (2). We only consider the result for λ(vi), as the ρ(vi) case is completely analogous.
By definition, λ(vi) /∈ [vi−r+2, vi]. Suppose for contradiction that λ(vi) ∈ [vi+1, vi+r−1]. By definition of λ(vi), there exists hλ = {u1 < · · · < ur < u1} ∈ H with u1 = λ(vi), ur = vi, and as n ≥ 2r, a w ∈ [λ(vi), vi] with w /∈ hλ. Let eλ = hλ\ {λ(vi)} ∪ {w}, and note that by definition of λ(vi) we have eλ ∈ H. This means there exists some h ∈ H so that h and e/ λ form a copy of M1(r). If h ⊆ (λ(vi), vi), then h ⊆ (uj, uj+1) for some j and hence {h, hλ} form an M1(r), a contradiction. Thus h ⊆ [vi+1, λ(vi)];
a contradiction as |[vi+1, λ(vi)]| ≤ r − 1.
For (3), let hλ = {u1 < · · · < ur} ∈ H be such that u1 = λ(vi) and ur = vi, and similarly define an edge hρ. Assume for contradiction that ρ(vi) /∈ [vi, λ(vi)]. This and (2) imply that λ(vi) 6= vi−r+1, and in particular that hλ6= [vi−r+1, vi]. Thus there exists some element w ∈ [λ(vi), vi] such that w /∈ hλ. Let eλ := hλ\ {λ(vi)} ∪ {w}, noting eλ ∈ H by the definition of λ(v/ i). Thus there exist h1 ∈ H which forms an M1(r) with eλ. Because h1 does not form an M1(r) with hλ, it is not difficult to see that h1 ⊆ (vi, λ(vi)]. An analogous argument gives that there exists h2 ∈ H with h2⊆ [ρ(vi), vi). By assumption (vi, λ(vi)] and [ρ(vi), vi) are disjoint, so h1, h2 form an M1(r), a contradiction.
We next prove (4). Assume that vj, e are as in the hypothesis with e /∈ H. Because H is saturated, e forms an M1(r) with some edge h ∈ H, and thus h ⊆ (vi, vj) or h ⊆ (vj, vi). By Proposition 3.4(3) and our hypothesis, λ(vi) < vi< ρ(vi) ≤ vj. If h ⊆ (vi, vj), then by definition of λ(vi) there exists an edge h0⊆ [λ(vi), vi], which forms an M1(r) with h, a contradiction. We reach a similar contradiction if
h ⊆ (vj, vi), proving the result. 2
The next proposition relates λ(vi), ρ(vi) and λ(vj), ρ(vj) for different vertices vi, vj ∈ Ωn. Proposition 3.5. Let H ⊂ Ωrn be M1(r)-saturated with n ≥ 2r. Then the following hold:
(1) For all vi ∈ Ωn, ρ(vi+1) = λ(vi).
(2) For all distinct vi, vj ∈ Ωn, |[ρ(vi), λ(vi)] ∩ [ρ(vj), λ(vj)]| ≤ 1.
(3) For all j, exactly one interval of the form [ρ(vi), λ(vi)] contains both points vj, vj+1. (4) If λ(vi) 6= ρ(vi), then λ(ρ(vi)) = vi and ρ(ρ(vi)) ∈ [λ(vi), vi).
Proof. We start with (1). Since λ(vi) /∈ [vi−r+2, vi+r−2] by Proposition 3.4(2), it follows from Proposi- tion 3.4(4) that h1, h2 ∈ H where h1 = {vi, vi+1, . . . , vi+r−2, λ(vi)} and h2 = {vi, vi−1, . . . , vi−r+2, λ(vi)}.
As such, no edge in H is contained entirely in (λ(vi), vi) or (vi, λ(vi)), and hence every edge containing vi+1 must contain an element in [λ(vi), vi], so ρ(vi+1) ∈ [λ(vi), vi].
By Proposition 3.4(2), e = {vi+1, vi+2, . . . , vi+r−1, λ(vi)} is a set of size r. We claim that e ∈ H, which will imply ρ(vi+1) ∈ [vi+1, λ(vi)] and hence ρ(vi+1) = λ(vi). Indeed, if e /∈ H, then there exists h ∈ H forming an M1(r) with e, and in particular h ⊆ (vi+1, λ(vi)) or h ⊆ (λ(vi), vi+1). The former case is impossible as mentioned above, so h ⊆ (λ(vi), vi+1). Also vi ∈ h as otherwise h, h1 would form an M1(r). But then h ⊆ (λ(vi), vi] contradicts the definition of λ(vi), proving the result.
For (2), suppose w1, w2∈ [ρ(vi), λ(vi)] ∩ [ρ(vj), λ(vj)] with w1 6= w2. Using Proposition 3.4(3), we can
assume without loss of generality that vi < vj < w1 < w2 < vi. Note that Proposition 3.4(2) implies that [vj, w1] ⊇ [vj, ρ(vj)] contains at least r elements, with this also holding for [w2, vi]. Thus if e1
is any r-set in [vj, w1] containing vj, w1, then e1 ∈ H by Proposition 3.4(4). Similarly there exists e2⊆ [w2, vi] in H, and hence e1, e2 form an M1(r) in H, a contradiction.
We next consider (3). The pair is in at most one such interval by part (2) of this proposition. For all vi ∈ Ωn, note that [ρ(vi), λ(vi)] = [ρ(vi), ρ(vi+1] by part (1) of this proposition. By Proposition 3.4(3), ρ(v0) ≤ ρ(v1) ≤ ρ(v2) ≤ · · · ≤ ρ(v0), so vj, vj+1 are in one of these intervals.
Finally, we consider (4). By Proposition 3.4(3), vi < ρ(vi) < λ(vi) < vi. By definition, there exists hρ ⊆ [vi, ρ(vi)] ∈ H with vi, ρ(vi) ∈ hρ and also some hλ ∈ H defined in an analogous way. The existence of hρ implies λ(ρ(vi)) ∈ [vi, ρ(vi)]. If there exists h ⊆ (vi, ρ(vi)], then it forms an M1(r) with hλ, a contradiction, so λ(ρ(vi)) ⊆ (ρ(vi), vi], and thus λ(ρ(vi)) = vi.
For the second part, the existence of hλ implies that any edge h ∈ H containing ρ(vi) has a vertex in [λ(vi), vi], so ρ(ρ(vi)) ∈ [λ(vi), ρ(vi)). Take e to be any r-set containing ρ(vi), vi−1and which is disjoint from [vi, ρ(vi)), which exists by Proposition 3.4(2). By Proposition 3.4(4), h := e \ {vi−1} ∪ {vi} ∈ H.
If e /∈ H, then h ∈ H implies that it must form an M1(r) with some h0 ⊆ [vi, ρ(vi)) which contains vi. This contradicts the definition of ρ(vi), so e ∈ H and hence ρ(ρ(vi)) ∈ [λ(vi), vi). 2 We next prove the existence of the wi’s from Proposition 3.2.
Lemma 3.6. Let H ⊂ Ωrn
be M1(r)-saturated with n ≥ 2r. Then there exist ` ≥ 1 and distinct vertices w1, . . . , w2`+1 ∈ Ωn such that w1 < w3 < w5 < · · · < w2`+1< w2 < w4 < · · · < w2`< w1 with λ(wi) = wi+1 and ρ(wi) = wi−1 for all i with the indices written mod 2` + 1.
Proof. By Proposition 3.5(3), there exists a vertex w1 with ρ(w1) 6= λ(w1). Continuing, we define wi = λ(wi−1) for all i. It is straightforward to prove using Proposition 3.5(1) and (4) that for all i ≥ 2 we have ρ(wi) = wi−1 and ρ(wi) 6= λ(wi). As Ωn is finite, there exists a pair of integers k0 ≤ k such that wk+1 = wk0, and without loss of generality we can assume k0 = 1.
Claim 3.7. Let 2 ≤ p ≤ k. Then
w1 < w3 < · · · < wp ≤ wk< w2 < w4 < · · · < wp−1≤ wk−1 if p is odd w1 < w3 < · · · < wp−1≤ wk < w2< w4 < · · · < wp≤ wk−1 if p is even.
Proof. By Proposition 3.4(3) and the observation that ρ(wi) 6= λ(wi) for all i,
w2= λ(w1) < w1 < ρ(w1) = wk < w2 and w1 = λ(wk) < wk< ρ(wk) = wk−1 < w1.
In total we have wk < w2, wk−1 < w1. If wk < wk−1 < w2 < w1, then wk−1, w2 would both be in [wk, w2] = [ρ(w1), λ(w1)] and [wk−1, w1] = [ρ(wk), λ(wk)]. This contradicts Proposition 3.5(2), so we must have wk< w2 ≤ wk−1< w1, which establishes the result when p = 2.
Assume the result holds up to p ≤ k. For simplicity we only consider the case that p is even, the odd
case being completely analogous. By the inductive hypothesis it suffices to prove wp−2< wp ≤ wk−1. By Proposition 3.4(3) and our inductive hypothesis, wp−2< wk−1, wp< wp−1.
If wp−2 < wk−1 < wp < wp−1, then wk−1, wp ∈ [wp−2, wp] = [ρ(wp−1), λ(wp−1)] and wk−1, wp ∈ [wk−1, w1] = [ρ(wk), λ(wk)], a contradiction to Proposition 3.5(2) as wk−16= wp. 2
Applying this claim with p = k gives the result. 2
Proof of Theorem 3.2. The backwards direction follows from Lemma 3.3. For the forwards direction, let C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) be as in Lemma 3.6. Note that Lemma 3.6 and Proposition 3.4(2) imply that the vertices have the correct relative ordering and that |[wi, wi−1]| ≥ r. Thus for all i there exists an r-set ei ⊆ [wi, wi−1] with wi, wi−1∈ ei, and by Proposition 3.4(3) and (4), ei ∈ H for all i. Thus each edge h ∈ H must intersect [wi, wi−1] for all i ∈ [2` + 1] in order to not form an M1(r)with any ei. That is, H ⊆ Hn(r)(C), and the result follows by using that any e ∈ Ωrn \ Hn(C) necessarily forms an M1(r) with an edge from H and the assumption that H is a maximal M1(r)-free cgh. 2
3.2 Optimizing Theorem 3.2 We say that a tuple C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) of distinct vertices from Ωn is semi-valid if
w1< w3 < · · · < w2`+1< w2 < · · · w2`< w1,
and that C is r-valid if moreover |[wi, wi−1| ≥ r for all i ∈ [2` + 1]. By Theorem 3.2, every M1(r)- saturated r-graph is of the form Hn(r)(C) such that C is r-valid. Thus to bound sat(n, M1(r)), it suffices to find an r-valid tuple C such that Hn(r)(C) has the fewest number of edges. To do this, we will start with an arbitrary r-valid C and perform certain “local moves” which decreases |Hn(r)(C)|.
Our primary local move consists of rotating k consecutive points of C one unit clockwise or counter- clockwise. To this end, we say that a semi-valid tuple C is (i, k)-consecutive if there exists some j such that wi+2s = vj+s for all 0 ≤ s < k. That is, starting from wi there are k consecutive points from Ωnin (w1, . . . , w2`+1). If C is (i, k)-consecutive, we define Ci,k,mto be the tuple2 (w01, . . . , w02`+1) with w0i+2s = vj+s+m for 0 ≤ s < k and wp0 = wp for all other p. That is, we shift the k consecutive points m units clockwise (or −m units counterclockwise if m is negative). Our main technical result says that if Ci,k,m is semi-valid for m = ±1, then “local moves” decrease the number of edges.
Proposition 3.8. Let C = (w1, . . . , w2`+1) and i, k be such that C is (i, k)-consecutive with 1 ≤ k ≤ `.
If each of the tuples Ci,k,−1, Ci,k,0, Ci,k,1 are semi-valid, then
|Hn(r)(C)| ≥ min{|Hn(r)(Ci,k,−1)|, |Hn(r)(Ci,k,1)|}.
Moreover, this inequality is strict if r ≥ 3 and n ≥ 3r − 5.
The assumption that r ≥ 3 is necessary for the bound to be strict (since Lemma 3.1 shows that
|Hn(2)(C)| = n for all C), but it is likely that the dependency on n can be improved upon.
Proof. We can assume i = 1 due to symmetry and let vj = w1 and C1,k,±1 = (w1±, . . . , w2`+1± ). For
2not necessarily semi-valid
ease of notation, let Hm = Hn(r)(Ci,k,m) for m = −1, 0, 1. Define Sp = [wp, wp−1] and Tp±= [w±p, w±p−1] for all p. By definition, e ∈ H0 if and only if e intersects each interval Sp, and similarly e ∈ H±1 if and only if e intersects each interval Tp±. We first rewrite these intervals as follows:
Claim 3.9.
Sp =
[wp, wp−1] p 6= s + 1 with 0 ≤ s ≤ 2k + 1, [vj+s, w2s] p = 2s + 1 with 0 ≤ s < k, [w2s+2, vj+s] p = 2s + 2 with 0 ≤ s < k.
Also,
Tp±=
[wp, wp−1] p 6= s + 1 with 0 ≤ s ≤ 2k + 1, [vj+s±1, w2s] p = 2s + 1 with 0 ≤ s < k, [w2s+2, vj+s±1] p = 2s + 2 with 0 ≤ s < k.
Proof. The case of Sp is immediate from the definitions. The Tp± case is almost immediate, but one has to be a little careful and show w2s ∈ {w/ 1, w3, . . . , w2k−1} for all 0 ≤ s < k. Because s < k ≤ `, either w2s is a vertex of even index or w2s = w2`+1 if s = 0. On the other hand, {w1, w3, . . . , w2k−1} consists of vertices of odd index with size at most 2` − 1 since k ≤ `, so the result follows. 2 To conclude the result, we will need to compute |Hm| − |Hm0| for various values of m, m0. To this end, we define Em,m0 = Hm\ Hm0 for m, m0 ∈ {−1, 0, 1}.
Claim 3.10. Let e ∈ Ωrn and m ∈ {−1, 0}.
• We have e ∈ Em,m+1 if and only if there exists an s with 0 ≤ s < k with e ⊆ (w2s, vj+s+m], vj+s+m∈ e, and e intersects (w2s, w2s+2].
• We have e ∈ Em+1,m if and only if there exists an s with 0 ≤ s < k with e ⊆ [vj+s+m+1, w2s+2), vj+s+m+1∈ e, and e intersects [w2s, w2s+2).
Proof. We only prove the result for E0,1, the proofs of the other cases being completely analogous (and in fact, the other cases follow from this case after reversing the order of Ωnand/or setting C = Ci,k,±1).
We first show that these conditions are necessary.
Let e ∈ E0,1. Because e ∈ H0, it intersects every Sp, and because e /∈ H1, it is disjoint from Tp+ for some p. Note that Sp ⊆ Tp+ implies e ∩ Tp+ 6= ∅, so by Claim 3.9, Tp+ = [vj+s+1, w2s] for some 0 ≤ s < k. Because e intersects S2s+1 = [vj+s, w2s], we have vj+s ∈ e and e ∩ [vj+s+1, w2s] = ∅, i.e.
e ⊆ (w2s, vj+s]. Since e ∈ H0, it must intersect [w2s+3, w2s+2]. Because s < k ≤ `, w2s+1= vj+s< vj+s+1≤ w2s+3< · · · < w2`+1< w2 < · · · < w2s< w2s+2,
so the only way e can intersect [w2s+3, w2s+2] and not [vj+s+1, w2s] is if it intersects (w2s, w2s+2]. Thus the conditions in the claim are necessary.
We now show that the conditions are sufficient. Let e be as in the hypothesis. As e ∩ [vj+s+1, w2s] = ∅,
e /∈ H1 by Claim 3.9. Thus it suffices to show that e ∈ H0, i.e. that it intersects each interval Sp = [wp, wp−1]. We claim that e intersects Sp if p ∈ {2s + 1, 2s − 1, . . . , 2s − 2` + 1}. Indeed, by the relative ordering we have wp ≤ w2s+1 ≤ wp−1 < wp for every p in this range, and because w2s+1 = vj+s∈ e, e ∩ [wp, wp−1] 6= ∅ for these values of p. Similarly for p ∈ {2s, 2s − 2, . . . , 2s − 2` + 2}
we have [w2s, w2s+2] ⊆ [wp, wp−1], so e intersects these Sp. This proves the result. 2 In order to compute |Em,m0|, for 0 ≤ s < k we define
ts= |(w2s, w2s+2)|, tk= |(w2k,vj)|, t−1= |(vj+k+1, w0)|, t>s=
k
X
s0=s+1
ts0, t<s=
s−1
X
s0=−1
ts0.
For m ∈ {−1, 0}, let Em,m+1s be the set of r-sets e such that e ⊆ (wi+2s−1, vj+s+m], vj+s+m∈ e, and e intersects (w2s, w2s+2]. By the previous claim, S Em,m+1s = Em,m+1, and in fact this union is disjoint since vj+s+m∈ e implies e 6⊆ (w2s0−1, vj+s0+m] for any s0 < s, so
X
s
|Em,m+1s | = |Em,m+1|. (2)
We claim that
|Em,m+1s | =
r−1
X
p=1
ts+ 1 p
t>s+ k + m r − 1 − p
. (3)
Indeed, any e ∈ Em,m+1s contains vj+s+m, some 1 ≤ p ≤ r − 1 elements from (w2s, w2s+2) ∪ {w2s+2}, with the remaining elements coming from
(w2s+2, vj+s+m) = (w2s+2, w2s+4) ∪ · · · ∪ (w2k, vj+m) ∪ [vj+m, vj+s+m) ∪ {w2s+4, w2s+6, . . . , w2k+2}, where we note that |(w2k, vj+s+m)| = tk+ m, |[vj+m, vj+s+m)| = s, and |{w2s+4, w2s+6, . . . , w2k+2}| = k − s; proving (3). One can define Em+1,ms ⊆ Em+1,m in an analogous way and prove
|Em+1,ms | =
r−1
X
p=1
ts+ 1 p
t<s+ k − m r − 1 − p
, (4)
with the only significant difference in the proof being that
(vj+s+m+1, w2s) = (vj+s+m+1, vj+k+m+1] ∪ (vj+k+m+1, w0) ∪ (w0, w2) ∪ · · · ∪ (w2s−2, w2s) ∪ {w0, w2, . . . , w2s−2}.
To prove the first part of the proposition, it suffices to show that
0 ≤ (|H0| − |H−1|) + (|H0| − |H1| = |E0,−1| + |E0,1| − |E−1,0| − |E1,0|. (5) We now note that using (2) and then (3) and (4), we get
|E0,−1| + |E0,1| − |E−1,0| − |E1,0| =X
s
|E0,−1s | + |E0,1s | − |E−1,0s | − |E1,0s |
=X
s r−1
X
p=1
ts+ 1 p
t<s+ k + 1 r − 1 − p
+ t>s+ k r − 1 − p
−t>s+ k − 1 r − 1 − p
− t<s+ k r − 1 − p
. (6)
Observe that each term of this innermost sum is non-negative, so (5) does indeed hold. To show that (5) is strict when r ≥ 3 and n ≥ 3r − 6, we will find a positive term in the sum.
We claim that for any s with ts ≥ r − 3, the p = r − 2 ≥ 1 term of (6) will be positive. Indeed, we have for example t>s1+k − t>s+k−11 = 1, where implicitly here we used t>s+ k ≥ 1 since k ≥ 1, and we also have tr−2s+1 ≥ 1 since ts≥ r − 3. Thus we can assume ts ≤ r − 4 for all s and will show
n − 3 = ts+ (t>s+ k) + (t<s+ k + 1). (7) Indeed, by our previous reasoning in computing |E0,1s | and |E1,0s |, we implicitly showed
|(w2s+2, vj+s)| + |(vj+s+1, w2s)| = t>s+ k + t<s+ k, and from this the claim follows after observing
Ωn= (w2s+2, vj+s) ∪ (vj+s+1, w2s) ∪ (w2s, ws+2) ∪ {w2s, w2s+2, vj+s, vj+s+1}.
Since ts≤ r − 4 for (every) s, by (7) we must have, say, t>s+ k ≥ 12(n − r + 1). In this case the p = 1 term for s in (6) will be positive provided n ≥ 3r − 5. This implies t<sr−2+k > 0 as desired. 2 We now find a set of k ≤ ` consecutive points such that Proposition 3.8 applies.
Lemma 3.11. Let C be a semi-valid sequence of length 2` + 1. If C is not (i, 2` + 1)-consecutive for any i, then there exists i, k such that C is (i, k)-consecutive with 1 ≤ k ≤ ` and such that Ci,k±1 are both semi-valid.
Proof. Let k0 be the largest integer such that there exists i0 with C being (i0, k0)-consecutive. Let i = i0+ 2k0, let j be such that wi = vj, and let k be the largest integer such that wi+2k−2 = vj+k−1. That is, wi, wi+2, . . . , wi+2k−2consists of a maximal set of consecutive points that appear directly after the k0 consecutive points starting with wi0. We claim that i, k satisfy the properties of the lemma.
Indeed, C is (i, k)-consecutive by construction. Also, by construction, wi+2k 6= vj+k and wi−2 6= vj−1 (the former is due to choosing k largest, and if the latter were false then C would be (i0, k0 + 1)- consecutive, which contradicts our choice of k0). Thus Ci,k,±1 consists of 2` + 1 distinct points.
Moreover, the relative order of Ci,k,±1 is the same as in C, so these sequences are semi-valid.
By construction {wi0, wi0+2, . . . , wi0+2k0−2, wi, wi+2, . . . , wi+2k−2} consists of k0 + k distinct vertices.
Thus k0+ k ≤ 2` + 1, and k ≤ k0 by definition of k0, so k ≤ ` as desired. 2
