Ectoderm-specific gene expression in dissociated cells of sea
On the size of dissociated bases
description
Transcript of On the size of dissociated bases
On the size of dissociated bases
Raphael YusterUniversity of Haifa
Joint work withVsevolod Lev
University of Haifa
2
• Recall, that subset sums of a subset of an abelian group are group elements of the form:
where B
• Note: there are at most 2|| distinct subset sums.
• Famous conjecture of Erdös (80 years ago, $500):
If all subset sums of an integer set [1,n] are pairwisedistinct, then || ≤ log n+O(1).
• Similarly, one can investigate the largest possible size of subsets of other natural sets in abelian groups, possessing the distinct subset sums property.
Dissociated bases
3
• Example:What is the largest possible size of a set {0,1}n n with all subset sums pairwise distinct?
• Definition: a subset of an abelian group, all of whose subset sums are pairwise distinct, is called dissociated.
• Dissociated sets are useful due to the fact that if is a maximal dissociated subset of a given set A, then every element of A is representable as a linear combination of the elements of with the coefficients in {-1,0,1}.
• Hence, maximal dissociated subsets of a given set can be considered as its ``linear bases” over the set {-1,0,1}.
• This interpretation naturally makes one wonder whether, and to what extent, the size of a maximal dissociated subset of a given set is determined by this set?
4
Theorem 1
For a positive integer n, the set {0,1}n possesses adissociated subset of size:
Is it true that all maximal dissociated subsets of a given finite set in an abelian group are of about the same size?
The following two theorems give a satisfactory answer:
Theorem 2
If and M are maximal dissociated subsets of a subset Aof an abelian group, then
5
Since the standard basis is a maximal dissociated subset of the set {0,1}n , comparing Theorems 1 and 2 we conclude that:
• Theorem 2 is sharp in the sense that the logarithmic factors cannot be dropped or replaced with a slower growing function.
• Theorem 1 is sharp in the sense that n log n is the true order of magnitude of the size of the largest dissociated subset of {0,1}n.
Why is this a satisfactory answer:
6
• Recall: we want to prove that {0,1}n possesses a dissociated subset of size:
• This is the same as showing that if n > (log 9+o(1))m/log mthen {0,1}n possesses an m-element dissociated subset.
• The trick is to switch to the dual setting:
• We prove that there exists a set D {0,1}m with |D|=n such that for every non-zero vector s S:={-1,0,1}m there is an element of D, not orthogonal to s.
• Once this is done, we consider the n m matrix whose rows are the elements of D; the columns of this matrix form an m-element dissociated subset of {0,1}n, as required.
Outline of the proof of Theorem 1
7
• Explanation: Suppose the sum of the red vectors is equal to the sum of the blue vectors. Then each row is orthogonal to the vector:
• We construct D by choosing uniformly at random, and independently of each other, n vectors from the set {0,1}m .
• We will show that for every s S:={-1,0,1}m, the probability that all vectors from D are orthogonal to s is very small.
n
m
1 -1 0 1 -1 1 -1 0 -1
The rows are the elements of D {0,1}m
8
• We say that a vector from S is of type (m+,m-) if it has m+
coordinates equal to +1, and m- coordinates equal to -1.
• If sS is of type (m+,m-) then a vector d {0,1}m is orthogonal to s if and only if there exists j≥0 such that d has:
- exactly j non-zero coordinates in the (+1)-locations of s, - exactly j non-zero coordinates in the (-1)-locations of s.
• Example: s=(1,-1,0,1,1,-1) is of type (3,2) and d=(0,1 ,1,0,1,0 ) is orthogonal to s, here with j=1.
• The probability for a randomly chosen d {0,1}m to be orthogonal to s is
9
• It follows that the probability for all n elements of D to be simultaneously orthogonal to s is smaller than
• Since the number of elements of a given type (m+,m-) is
to conclude the proof it suffices to prove that
• To this end we rewrite this sum as
and split it into two parts, according to whether t<T or t > T, where T := m/(log m)2. Denote the parts by ∑1 and ∑2 .
10
• We prove that ∑1 < ½ and ∑2 < ½.
• For ∑1 we have
• As T := m/(log m)2 and n > (log 9+o(1))m/log m we have
and therefore ∑1< ½ .
• Proving that ∑2< ½ is only slightly more involved.
11
• Recall: we want to prove that if and M are maximal dissociated subsets of a subset A of an abelian group, then
• Here we will only prove the lower bound:
• The upper bound is only slightly more complicated.
• By maximality of , every element of A, and thereby every element M, is a linear combination of the elements of with coefficients in {-1,0,1}.
• Hence, every subset sum of M is a linear combination of the elements of with coefficients in {-|M|,-|M|+1,…,|M|}.
Outline of the proof of Theorem 2
12
• There are 2|M| subset sums of M, all distinct from each other.
• There are (2|M|+1)|| linear combinations of the elements of with the coefficients in {-|M|,-|M|+1,…,|M|}.
• we have: 2|M| · (2|M|+1)|| and follows.
13
• For a positive integer n, let Ln denote the largest size of a dissociated subset of the set {0,1}n n . What are the limits
• Notice, that by Theorems 1 and 2 we have
Open problem
14
Thanks!