MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

The probabilistic method is an important technique in combinatorics. In a typical

application, we wish to prove the existence of something with certain desirable prop-
erties. To do so, we devise a random construction and show that it works with positive
probability.
Let us begin with a simple example of this method.

Theorem 1.0.1 (Large bipartite subgraph)

Every graph with 𝑚 edges has a bipartite subgraph with at least 𝑚/2 edges.

Proof. Let the graph by 𝐺 = (𝑉, 𝐸). Assign every vertex a color, randomly either
black or white, uniformly and independently at random.
Let 𝐸 ′ be the set of edges with one black endpoint and one white endpoint. Then
(𝑉, 𝐸 ′) is a bipartite subgraph of 𝐺.
Every edge belongs to 𝐸 ′ with probability 1/2. So by the linearity of expectation, the
expected size of 𝐸 ′ is
1
E[|𝐸 ′ |] = |𝐸 | .
2
1
Thus there is some coloring with |𝐸 ′ | ≥ 2 |𝐸 |. Then (𝑉, 𝐸 ′) is the desired subgraph.
□

1.1 Lower bounds to Ramsey numbers

Ramsey number 𝑹(𝒌, ℓ) = smallest 𝑛 such that in every red-blue edge coloring of 𝐾𝑛 ,
there exists a red 𝐾 𝑘 or a blue 𝐾ℓ .
For example, 𝑅(3, 3) = 6 (every red/blue edge-coloring of 𝐾6 has a monochromatic
triangle, but one can color 𝐾5 without any monochromatic triangle).
Ramsey (1929) proved that 𝑅(𝑘, ℓ) exists (i.e., is finite). This is known as Ramsey’s
theorem.

1
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

Image courtesy of Kmhkmh. Source: Wikimedia Commons. License CC BY.

Paul Erdős (1913–1996) is considered the father of the probabilistic method.

He published around 1,500 papers during his lifetime, and had more than 500
collaborators. To learn more about Erdős, see his biography The man who loved
only numbers by Hoffman and the documentary N is a number (You may be able
to watch this movie for free on Kanopy using your local public library account).

© Cambridge Wittgenstein archive. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.
For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use.
Frank Ramsey (1903–1930) wrote seminal papers in philosophy, economics, and
mathematical logic, before his untimely death at the age of 26 from liver problems.
See a recent profile of him in the New Yorker.

Finding quantitative estimates of Ramsey numbers (and its generalizations) is generally

a difficult and often fundamental problem in Ramsey theory.

Remark 1.1.1 (Hungarian names). Many Hungarian mathematicians, notable due to

Erdős’ influence, made foundational contributions to this field. So we will encounter
many Hungarian names in this subject.
How to type “Erdős” in LATEX: Erd\H{o}s (incorrect: Erd\"os, which produces
“Erdös”)
How to pronounce Hungarian names:
Hungarian spelling Sounds like Examples
s sh Erdős, Simonovits
sz s Szemerédi, Lovász

Erdős’ original proof

One of the earliest application of the probabilistic method in combinatorics given by
Erdős in his seminal paper:
P. Erdős, Some remarks on the theory of graphs, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc, 1947.

2
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.1 Lower bounds to Ramsey numbers

Here is the main result of this paper.

Theorem 1.1.2 (Lower bound to Ramsey numbers; Erdős 1947)

𝑛
1− ( 𝑘2 )
If 𝑘 2 < 1, then 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > 𝑛.
In other words, there exists a red-blue edge-coloring of 𝐾𝑛 with no monochromatic
𝐾𝑘 .

In the proof below, we will apply the union bound: for events 𝐸 1 , . . . , 𝐸 𝑚 ,

P(𝐸 1 ∪ · · · ∪ 𝐸 𝑚 ) ≤ P(𝐸 1 ) + · · · + P(𝐸 𝑚 ).

We usually think of each 𝐸𝑖 as a “bad event” that we are trying to avoid.

Proof. Color edges of 𝐾𝑛 with red or blue independently and uniformly at random.

For every fixed subset 𝑆 of 𝑘 vertices, let 𝐴𝑆 denote the event that 𝑆 induces a
monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 , so that P( 𝐴𝑆 ) = 21− ( 2) . Then, by the union bound,
𝑘

 
© Ø ª ∑︁ 𝑛 1− ( 𝑘)
P(there is a monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 ) = P ­
­ 𝐴𝑆 ® ≤
® P( 𝐴𝑆 ) = 2 2 < 1.
[𝑛] [𝑛]
𝑘
«𝑆∈ ( 𝑘 ) ¬ 𝑆∈ ( 𝑘 )
Thus, with positive probability, the random coloring gives no monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 . So
there exists some coloring with no monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 . □

Remark 1.1.3 (Quantitative bound). By optimizing 𝑛 as a function of 𝑘 in the theorem

above (using Stirling’s formula), we obtain
 
1
𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > √ + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2 .
𝑒 2

Erdős’ 1947 paper actually was phrased in terms of counting: of all 2 ( 2) possible
𝑛

colorings, the total number of bad colors is strictly less than 2 ( 2) .

𝑛

In this course, we mostly consider finite probability spaces. While in principle the
finite probability arguments can be rephrased as counting, some of the later more
involved arguments are impractical without a probabilistic perspective.

Remark 1.1.4 (Constructive lower bounds). The above proof only gives the existence
of a red-blue edge-coloring of 𝐾𝑛 without monochromatic cliques. Is there a way to
find algorithmically find one? With an appropriate 𝑛, even though a random coloring
achieves the goal with very high probability, there is no efficient method (in polynomial
running time) to certify that any specific edge-coloring avoids monochromatic cliques.

3
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

So even though there are lots of Ramsey colorings, it is hard to find and certify an
actual one. This difficulty has been described as finding hay in a haystack.
Finding constructive lower bounds is a major open problem. There was major progress
on this problem stemming from connections to randomness extractors in computer
science (e.g., Barak et al. 2012, Chattopadhyay & Zuckerman 2016, Cohen 2017)

Remark 1.1.5 (Ramsey number upper bounds). Although Ramsey proved that Ram-
sey numbers are finite, his upper bounds are quite large. Erdős–Szekeres (1935) used
a simple and nice inductive argument to show
 
𝑘 +ℓ
𝑅(𝑘 + 1, ℓ + 1) ≤ .
𝑘

For diagonal Ramsey numbers 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘), this bound has the form 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) ≤ (4 − 𝑜(1)) 𝑘 .
Recently, in a major and surprising breakthrough, Campos, Griffiths, Morris, and
Sahasrabudhe (2023+) show that there is some constant 𝑐 > 0 so that for all sufficiently
large 𝑘,
𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) ≤ (4 − 𝑐) 𝑘 .
This is the first exponential improvement over the Erdős–Szekeres bound.

Alteration method
Let us give another argument that slightly improves the earlier lower bound on Ramsey
numbers.
Instead of just taking a random coloring and analyzing it, we first randomly color, and
then fix some undesirable features. This is called the alteration method (sometimes
also the deletion method).

Theorem 1.1.6 (Ramsey lower bound via alteration)

 
𝑛 1− ( 𝑘)
For any 𝑘, 𝑛, we have 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > 𝑛 − 2 2 .
𝑘

Proof. We construct an edge-coloring of a clique in two steps:

(1) Randomly color each edge of 𝐾𝑛 with red or blue (independently and uniformly
at random);
(2) Delete a vertex from every monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 .
The process yields a 2-edge-colored clique with no monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 (since the
second step destroyed all monochromatic cliques).

4
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.1 Lower bounds to Ramsey numbers

Let us now analyze how many vertices we get at the end.

Let 𝑋 be the number of monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 ’s in the first step. Since each 𝐾 𝑘 is
monochromatic with probability 21− ( 2) , by the linearity of expectations,
𝑘

 
𝑛 1− ( 𝑘)
E𝑋 = 2 2 .
𝑘

In the second step, we delete at most |𝑋 | vertices (since we delete one vertex from
every clique). Thus final graph has size ≥ 𝑛 − |𝑋 |, which has expectation 𝑛 − 𝑛𝑘 21− ( 2) .

𝑘

Thus with positive probability, the remaining graph has ≥ 𝑛 − 𝑛𝑘 21− ( 2) vertices (and

𝑘

no monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 by construction). □

Remark 1.1.7 (Quantitative bound). By optimizing the choice of 𝑛 in the theorem,

we obtain  
1
𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2 ,
𝑒
√
which improves the previous bound by a constant factor of 2.

Lovász local lemma

Often we wish to avoid a set of “bad events” 𝐸 1 , . . . , 𝐸 𝑛 . Here are two easy extremes:
• (Union bound) If 𝑖 P(𝐸𝑖 ) < 1, then union bound tells us that we can avoid all
Í

bad events.
• (Independence) If all bad events are independent, then the probability that none
Î𝑛
of 𝐸𝑖 occurs is 𝑖=1 (1 − P(𝐸𝑖 )) > 0 (provided that all P(𝐸𝑖 ) < 1).
What if we are in some intermediate situation, where the union bound is not good
enough, and the bad events are not independent, but there are only few dependencies?
The Lovász local lemma provides us a solution when each event is only independent
with all but a small number of other events.
Here is a version of the Lovász local lemma, which we will prove later in Chapter 6.

5
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

Theorem 1.1.8 (Lovász local lemma — random variable model)

Let 𝑥1 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑁 be independent random variables. Let 𝐵1 , . . . , 𝐵𝑚 ⊆ [𝑁]. For each 𝑖,
let 𝐸𝑖 be an event that depends only on the variables indexed by 𝐵𝑖 (i.e., 𝐸𝑖 is allowed
to depend only on {𝑥 𝑗 : 𝑗 ∈ 𝐵𝑖 }).
Suppose, for every 𝑖 ∈ [𝑚], 𝐵𝑖 has non-empty intersections with at most 𝑑 other 𝐵 𝑗 ’s,
and
1
P[𝐸𝑖 ] ≤ .
(𝑑 + 1)𝑒
Then with positive probability, none of the events 𝐸𝑖 occur.

Here 𝑒 = 2.71 · · · is the base of the natural logarithm. This constant turns out to be
optimal in the above theorem.
Using the Lovász local lemma, let us give one more improvement to the Ramsey
number lower bounds.

Theorem 1.1.9 (Ramsey lower bound via local lemma; Spencer 1977)


+ 1 21− ( 2) < 1/𝑒, then 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > 𝑛.
𝑘 𝑛
𝑘
If 2 𝑘−2

Proof. Color the edges of 𝐾𝑛 with red/blue uniformly and independently at random.

For each 𝑘-vertex subset 𝑆, let 𝐸 𝑆 be the event that 𝑆 induces a monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 . So
P[𝐸 𝑆 ] = 21− ( 2) .
𝑘

In the setup of the local lemma, we have one independent random variable correspond-
ing to each edge. Each event 𝐸 𝑆 depends only on the variables corresponding to the
edges in 𝑆.
If 𝑆 and 𝑆′ are both 𝑘-vertex subsets, their cliques share an edge if and only if
|𝑆 ∩ 𝑆′ | ≥ 2. So for each 𝑆, there are at most 2𝑘 𝑘−2 choices 𝑘-vertex sets 𝑆′ with

𝑛

|𝑆 ∩ 𝑆′ | ≥ 2. So the local lemma applies provided that

1 1
21− ( 2) <
𝑘

𝑘
𝑛

.
𝑒
2 𝑘−2 +1

So with positive probability none of the events 𝐸 𝑆 occur, which means an edge-coloring
with no monochromatic 𝐾 𝑘 ’s. □

Remark 1.1.10 (Quantitative lower bounds). By optimizing the choice of 𝑛, we

obtain √ !
2
𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) > + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2
𝑒

6
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.2 Set systems

√
once again improving the previous bound by a constant factor of 2. This is the best
known lower bound to 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑘) to date.

1.2 Set systems

In extremal set theory, we often wish to understand the maximum size of a set system
with some given property. A set system F is a collection of subsets of some ground
set, usually [𝑛]. That is, each element of F is a subset of [𝑛]. We will see some classic
results from extremal set theory each with a clever probabilistic proof.

Sperner’s theorem
We say that a set family F is an antichain if no element of F is a subset of another
element of F (i.e., the elements of F are pairwise incomparable by containment).

Question 1.2.1
What is the maximum number of sets in an antichain of subsets of [𝑛]?

The set F = [𝑛]

𝑘 (i.e., all 𝑘-element subsets of [𝑛]) has size 𝑛𝑘 . It is an antichain

   
(why?). The size 𝑛𝑘 is maximized when 𝑘 = 𝑛2 or 𝑛2 . The next result shows that
this is indeed the best we can do.

Theorem 1.2.2 (Sperner’s theorem, 1928)

 
𝑛
If F is an antichain of subsets of {1, 2, . . . , 𝑛}, then |F | ≤ .
⌊𝑛/2⌋

In fact, we will show an even stronger result:

Theorem 1.2.3 (LYM inequality; Bollobás 1965, Lubell 1966, Meshalkin 1963, and
Yamamoto 1954)
If F is an antichain of subsets of [𝑛], then

∑︁  𝑛  −1
≤ 1.
| 𝐴|
𝐴∈F

𝑛
𝑛

Sperner’s theorem follows since | 𝐴| ≤ ⌊𝑛/2⌋ for all 𝐴.

Proof. Let 𝜎(1), . . . , 𝜎(𝑛) be a permutation of 1, . . . , 𝑛 chosen uniformly at random.

Consider the chain:

∅, {𝜎(1)} , {𝜎(1), 𝜎(2)} , {𝜎(1), 𝜎(2), 𝜎(3)} , . . . , {𝜎(1), . . . , 𝜎(𝑛)} .

7
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

For each 𝐴 ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , 𝑛}, let 𝐸 𝐴 denote the event that 𝐴 appears in the above chain.
Then 𝐸 𝐴 occurs if and only if all the elements of 𝐴 appears first in the permutation
𝜎, followed by all the elements of [𝑛] \ 𝐴. The number of such permutations is
| 𝐴|!(𝑛 − | 𝐴|)!. Hence
  −1
| 𝐴|!(𝑛 − | 𝐴|)! 𝑛
P(𝐸 𝐴 ) = = .
𝑛! | 𝐴|

Since F is an antichain, if 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ F are distinct, then 𝐸 𝐴 and 𝐸 𝐵 cannot both occur

(as otherwise 𝐴 and 𝐵 both appear in the above chain and so one of them contains the
other, violating the antichain hypothesis). So {𝐸 𝐴 : 𝐴 ∈ F } is a set of disjoint events,
and thus their probabilities sum to at most 1. So

∑︁  𝑛  −1 ∑︁
≤ P(𝐸 𝐴 ) ≤ 1. □
| 𝐴|
𝐴∈F 𝐴∈F

Bollobás’ two families theorem

Theorem 1.2.4 (Bollobás’ two families theorem 1965)

Let 𝐴1 , . . . , 𝐴𝑚 be 𝑟-element sets and 𝐵1 , . . . , 𝐵𝑚 be 𝑠-element sets such that 𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵𝑖 =


∅ for all 𝑖 and 𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵 𝑗 ≠ ∅ for all 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗. Then 𝑚 ≤ 𝑟+𝑠 𝑟 .

This bound is sharp: let 𝐴𝑖 range over all 𝑟-element subsets of [𝑟 + 𝑠] and set 𝐵𝑖 =
[𝑟 + 𝑠] \ 𝐴𝑖 .
Let us give an application/motivation for Bollobás’ two families theorem in terms of
transversals. Given a set family F , say that 𝑇 is a transversal for F if 𝑇 ∩ 𝑆 ≠ ∅ for
all 𝑆 ∈ F (i.e., 𝑇 hits every element of F ). Let 𝝉(F), the transversal number of F ,
be the size of the smallest transversal of F . Say that F is 𝝉-critical if 𝜏(F ′) < 𝜏(F )
whenever F ′ is a proper subset of F .

Question 1.2.5
What is the maximum size of a 𝜏-critical 𝑟-uniform F with 𝜏(F ) = 𝑠 + 1?


We claim that the answer is 𝑟+𝑠𝑟 . Indeed, let F = {𝐴1 , . . . , 𝐴𝑚 }, and 𝐵𝑖 an 𝑠-element
transversal of F \ { 𝐴𝑖 } for each 𝑖. Then the hypothesis of Bollobás’ two families


theorem is satisfied. Thus 𝑚 ≤ 𝑟+𝑠 𝑟 .

Conversely, F = [𝑟+𝑠]


𝑟 is 𝜏-critcal 𝑟-uniform with 𝜏(F ) = 𝑠 + 1 (why?).

Here is a more general statement of the Bollobás’ two-family theorem.

8
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.2 Set systems

Theorem 1.2.6 (Bollobás’ two families theorem 1965)

Let 𝐴1 , . . . , 𝐴𝑚 and 𝐵1 , . . . , 𝐵𝑚 be finite sets such that 𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵𝑖 = ∅ for all 𝑖 and
𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵 𝑗 ≠ ∅ for all 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗. Then
𝑚   −1
∑︁ | 𝐴𝑖 | + |𝐵𝑖 |
≤ 1.
𝑖=1
| 𝐴𝑖 |

Note that Sperner’s theorem and LYM inequality are also special cases, since if
{𝐴1 , . . . , 𝐴𝑚 } is an antichain, then setting 𝐵𝑖 = [𝑛] \ 𝐴𝑖 for all 𝑖 satisfies the hypothesis.

Proof. The proof is a modification of the proof of the LYM inequality earlier.

Consider a uniform random ordering of 𝐴1 ∪ · · · ∪ 𝐴𝑚 ∪ 𝐵1 ∪ · · · ∪ 𝐵𝑚 .

Let 𝐸𝑖 be the event that all elements of 𝐴𝑖 appear before 𝐵𝑖 . Then
  −1
| 𝐴𝑖 | + |𝐵𝑖 |
P(𝐸𝑖 ) = .
| 𝐴𝑖 |

Note that the events 𝐸𝑖 are disjoint, since 𝐸𝑖 and 𝐸 𝑗 both occurring would contradict
Í
the hypothesis for 𝐴𝑖 , 𝐵𝑖 , 𝐴 𝑗 , 𝐵 𝑗 (why?). Thus 𝑖 P(𝐸𝑖 ) ≤ 1. This yields the claimed
inequality. □

Bollobas’ two families theorem has many interesting generalizations that we will not
discuss here (e.g., see Gil Kalai’s blog post). There are also beautiful linear algebraic
proofs of this theorem and its extensions.

Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem on intersecting families

We say that a family F is intersecting if 𝐴 ∩ 𝐵 ≠ ∅ for all 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ F . That is, no two
sets in F are disjoint.
Here is an easy warm up.

Question 1.2.7 (Intersecting family—unrestricted sizes)

What is the largest intersecting family of subsets of [𝑛]?

One way to generate a large intersecting family is to include all sets that contain a fixed
element (say, the element 1). This family has size 2𝑛−1 and is clearly intersecting.
(This isn’t the only example with size 2𝑛−1 ; can you think of other intersecting families
with the same size?)

9
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

It turns out that one cannot do better than 2𝑛−1 . Since we can pair up each subset of [𝑛]
with its complement. At most one of 𝐴 and [𝑛] \ 𝐴 can be in an intersecting family.
And so at most half of all sets can be in an intersecting family.
The question becomes much more interesting if we restrict to 𝑘-uniform families.

Question 1.2.8 ( 𝑘 -uniform intersecting family)

What is the largest intersecting family of 𝑘-element subsets of [𝑛]?

Example: F = all subsets containing the element 1. Then F is intersecting and

|F | = 𝑛−1
𝑘−1 .

Theorem 1.2.9 (Erdős–Ko–Rado 1961; proved in 1938)

If 𝑛 ≥ 2𝑘, then every intersecting family of 𝑘-element subsets of [𝑛] has size at most
𝑛−1

𝑘−1 .

Remark 1.2.10. The assumption 𝑛 ≥ 2𝑘 is necessary since if 𝑛 < 2𝑘, then the family
of all 𝑘-element subsets of [𝑛] is automatically intersecting by pigeonhole.

Proof. Consider a uniform random circular permutation of 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛 (arrange them

randomly around a circle)
For each 𝑘-element subset 𝐴 of [𝑛], we say that 𝐴 is contiguous if all the elements of
𝐴 lie in a contiguous block on the circle.


The probability that 𝐴 forms a contiguous set on the circle is exactly 𝑛/ 𝑛𝑘 .


So the expected number of contiguous sets in F is exactly 𝑛 |F | / 𝑛𝑘 .
Since F is intersecting, there are at most 𝑘 contiguous sets in F (under every circular
ordering of [𝑛]). Indeed, suppose that 𝐴 ∈ F is contiguous. Then there are 2(𝑘 − 1)
other contingous sets (not necessarily in F ) that intersect 𝐴, but they can be paired
off into disjoint pairs (check! Here we use the hypothesis that 𝑛 ≥ 2𝑘). Since F is
intersecting, it follows that it contains at most 𝑘 contiguous sets.


Combining with result from the previous paragraph, we see that 𝑛 |F | / 𝑛𝑘 ≤ 𝑘, and



hence |F | ≤ 𝑛𝑘 𝑛𝑘 = 𝑛−1
𝑘−1 . □

1.3 2-colorable hypergraphs

An 𝒌-uniform hypergraph (or 𝒌-graph) is a pair 𝐻 = (𝑉, 𝐸), where 𝑉 (vertices)


is a finite set and 𝐸 (edges) is a set of 𝑘-element subsets of 𝐸, i.e., 𝐸 ⊆ 𝑉𝑘 . (So
hypergraphs and set families are the same concept, just different names.)

10
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.3 2-colorable hypergraphs

We say that 𝐻 is 𝒓-colorable if the vertices can be colored using 𝑟 colors so that no
edge is monochromatic.
Let 𝒎(𝒌) denote the minimum number of edges in a 𝑘-uniform hypergraph that is
not 2-colorable (elsewhere in the literature, “2-colorable” = “property B”, named after
Bernstein who introduced the concept in 1908). Some small values:
• 𝑚(2) = 3
• 𝑚(3) = 7. Example: Fano plane (below) is not 2-colorable (the fact there are no
6-edge non-2-colorable 3-graphs can be proved by exhaustive search).

• 𝑚(4) = 23, proved via exhaustive computer search (Östergård 2014)

Exact value of 𝑚(𝑘) is unknown for all 𝑘 ≥ 5. However, we can get some asymptotic
lower and upper bounds using the probability method.

Theorem 1.3.1 (Erdős 1964)

𝑚(𝑘) ≥ 2 𝑘−1 for every 𝑘 ≥ 2.
(In other words, every 𝑘-uniform hypergraph with fewer than 2 𝑘−1 edges is 2-colorable.)

Proof. Let there be 𝑚 < 2 𝑘−1 edges. In a random 2-coloring, the probability that there
is a monochromatic edge is ≤ 2−𝑘+1 𝑚 < 1. □

Remark 1.3.2. Later in Section 3.5 we will prove an better lower bound 𝑚(𝑘) ≳
√︁
2 𝑘 𝑘/log 𝑘, which is the best known to date.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the state of the art upper bound is also proved using
probabilistic method (random construction).

Theorem 1.3.3 (Erdős 1964)

𝑚(𝑘) = 𝑂 (𝑘 2 2 𝑘 ).
(In other words, there exists a 𝑘-uniform hypergraph with 𝑂 (𝑘 2 2 𝑘 ) edges that is not
2-colorable.)

Proof. Let |𝑉 | = 𝑛 = 𝑘 2 (this choice is motivated by the displayed inequality be-

low). Let 𝐻 be the 𝑘-uniform hypergraph obtained by choosing 𝑚 edges 𝑆1 , . . . , 𝑆 𝑚


independently and uniformly at random (i.e., with replacement) among 𝑉𝑛 .

11
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

Given a coloring 𝜒 : 𝑉 → [2], if 𝜒 colors 𝑎 vertices with one color and 𝑏 vertices
with the other color, then the probability that the (random) edge 𝑆1 is monochromatic
under the (non-random) coloring 𝜒 is

𝑎
𝑏
𝑛/2

+
𝑘
2

𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 2(𝑛/2)(𝑛/2 − 1) · · · (𝑛/2 − 𝑘 + 1) 𝑛/2 − 𝑘 + 1
𝑛
≥ 𝑛
= ≥2
𝑘 𝑘
𝑛(𝑛 − 1) · · · (𝑛 − 𝑘 + 1) 𝑛−𝑘 +1
 𝑘  𝑘
−𝑘+1 𝑘 −1 −𝑘+1 𝑘 −1
=2 1− =2 1− 2 ≥ 𝑐2−𝑘
𝑛−𝑘 +1 𝑘 −𝑘 +1

for some constant 𝑐 > 0.

Since the edges are chosen independently at random, for any coloring 𝜒,
−𝑘 𝑚
P( 𝜒 is a proper coloring) ≤ (1 − 𝑐2−𝑘 ) 𝑚 ≤ 𝑒 −𝑐2

(using 1 + 𝑥 ≤ 𝑒 𝑥 for all real 𝑥). By the union bound,

∑︁
P(the random hypergraph has a proper 2-coloring) ≤ P( 𝜒 is a proper coloring)
𝜒
−𝑘 𝑚
≤ 2𝑛 𝑒 −𝑐2 <1

for some 𝑚 = 𝑂 (𝑘 2 2 𝑘 ) (recall 𝑛 = 𝑘 2 ). Thus there exists a non-2-colorable 𝑘-uniform

hypergraph with 𝑚 edges. □

1.4 List chromatic number of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛

Given a graph 𝐺, its chromatic number 𝝌(𝑮) is the minimum number of colors
required to proper color its vertices.
In list coloring, each vertex of 𝐺 is assigned a list of allowable colors. We say that 𝐺
is 𝒌-choosable (also called 𝒌-list colorable) if it has a proper coloring no matter how
one assigns a list of 𝑘 colors to each vertex.
We write ch(𝑮), called the list chromatic number (also called: choice number,
choosability, list colorability) of 𝐺, to be the smallest 𝑘 so that 𝐺 is 𝑘-choosable.
We have 𝜒(𝐺) ≤ ch(𝐺) by assigning the same list of colors to each vertex. The
inequality may be strict, as we will see below.
For example, while every bipartite graph is 2-colorable, 𝐾3,3 is not 2-choosable.
Indeed, no list coloring of 𝐾3,3 is possible with color lists (check!):

12
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.4 List chromatic number of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛

{1, 2} {1, 2}
{1, 3} {1, 3}
{2, 3} {2, 3}

Exercise: check that ch(𝐾3,3 ) = 3.

Question 1.4.1
What is the asymptotic behavior of ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 )?

First we prove an upper bound on ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ).

Theorem 1.4.2
If 𝑛 < 2 𝑘−1 , then 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 is 𝑘-choosable.

 
In other words, ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ) ≤ log2 (2𝑛) + 1.

Proof. For each color, mark it either L or R independently and uniformly at random.

For any vertex of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 on the left part, remove all its colors marked R.
For any vertex of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 on the right part, remove all its colors marked L.
The probability that some vertex has no colors remaining is at most 2𝑛2−𝑘 < 1 by the
union bound. So with positive probability, every vertex has some color remaining.
Assign the colors arbitrarily for a valid coloring. □

The lower bound on ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ) turns out to follow from the existence of non-2-colorable
𝑘-uniform hypergraph with many edges.

Theorem 1.4.3
If there exists a non-2-colorable 𝑘-uniform hypergraph with 𝑛 edges, then 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 is not
𝑘-choosable.

Proof. Let 𝐻 = (𝑉, 𝐸) be a non-2-colorable 𝑘-uniform hypergraph |𝐸 | = 𝑛 edges.

Now, view 𝑉 as colors and assign to the 𝑖-th vertex of 𝐾𝑛 on both the left and right
bipartitions a list of colors given by the 𝑖-th edge of 𝐻. We leave it as an exercise to
check that this 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 is not list colorable. □

Recall from Theorem 1.3.3 that there exists a non-2-colorable 𝑘-uniform hypergraph
with 𝑂 (𝑘 2 2 𝑘 ) edges. Thus ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ) > (1 − 𝑜(1)) log2 𝑛.
Putting these bounds together:

13
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1 Introduction

Corollary 1.4.4 (List chromatic number of a complete bipartite graph)

ch(𝐾𝑛,𝑛 ) = (1 + 𝑜(1)) log2 𝑛

It turns out that, unlike the chromatic number, the list chromatic number always
grows with the average degree. The following result was proved using the method of
hypergraph containers, a very important modern development in combinatorics that
we will see a glimpse of in Chapter 11. It provides the optimal asymptotic dependence
(the example of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛 shows optimality).

Theorem 1.4.5 (Saxton and Thomason 2015)

If a graph 𝐺 has average degree 𝑑, then, as 𝑑 → ∞,

ch(𝐺) > (1 + 𝑜(1)) log2 𝑑.

They also proved similar results for the list chromatic number of hypergraphs. For
graphs, a slightly weaker result, off by a factor of 2, was proved earlier by Alon (2000).

Exercises
1. Verify the following asymptotic calculations used in Ramsey number lower
bounds:
 
a) For each 𝑘, the largest 𝑛 satisfying 𝑛𝑘 21− ( 2) < 1 has 𝑛 = √1 + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2 .

𝑘

𝑒 2

21− ( ) as 𝑛 ranges over positive

𝑛
𝑘
b) For each 𝑘, the maximum
 value of 𝑛 − 𝑘
2

integers is 1𝑒 + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2 .



+ 1 21− ( 2) < 1 satisfies
𝑘 𝑛
𝑘
c) For each 𝑘, the largest 𝑛 satisfying 𝑒 2 𝑘−2
√ 
𝑛 = 𝑒2 + 𝑜(1) 𝑘2 𝑘/2 .

2. Prove that, if there is a real 𝑝 ∈ [0, 1] such that

   
𝑛 ( 𝑘) 𝑛
(1 − 𝑝) ( 2) < 1
𝑡
𝑝 +
2
𝑘 𝑡

then the Ramsey number 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑡) satisfies 𝑅(𝑘, 𝑡) > 𝑛. Using this show that
  3/2
𝑡
𝑅(4, 𝑡) ≥ 𝑐
log 𝑡

for some constant 𝑐 > 0.

14
 MIT OCW: Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics — Yufei Zhao

1.4 List chromatic number of 𝐾𝑛,𝑛

3. Let 𝐺 be a graph with 𝑛 vertices and 𝑚 edges. Prove that 𝐾𝑛 can be written as a
union of 𝑂 (𝑛2 (log 𝑛)/𝑚) isomorphic copies of 𝐺 (not necessarily edge-disjoint).
4. Prove that there is an absolute constant 𝐶 > 0 so that for every 𝑛 × 𝑛 matrix
with distinct real entries, one can permute its rows so that no column in the
√
permuted matrix contains an increasing subsequence of length at least 𝐶 𝑛. (A
subsequence does not need to be selected from consecutive terms. For example,
(1, 2, 3) is an increasing subsequence of (1, 5, 2, 4, 3).)
5. Generalization of Sperner’s theorem. Let F be a collection of subset of [𝑛] that
does not contain 𝑘 + 1 elements forming a chain: 𝐴1 ⊊ · · · ⊊ 𝐴 𝑘+1 . Prove that
F is no larger than taking the union of the 𝑘 levels of the Boolean lattice closest
to the middle layer.
6. Let 𝐺 be a graph on 𝑛 ≥ 10 vertices. Suppose that adding any new edge to 𝐺
would create a new clique on 10 vertices. Prove that 𝐺 has at least 8𝑛 − 36 edges.
Hint: Apply Bollobás’ two families theorem

7. Let 𝑘 ≥ 4 and 𝐻 a 𝑘-uniform hypergraph with at most 4 𝑘−1 /3 𝑘 edges. Prove

that there is a coloring of the vertices of 𝐻 by four colors so that in every edge
all four colors are represented.
8. Given a set F of subsets of [𝑛] and 𝐴 ⊆ [𝑛], write F | 𝐴 := {𝑆 ∩ 𝐴 : 𝑆 ∈ F } (its
projection onto 𝐴). Prove that for every 𝑛 and 𝑘, there exists a set F of subsets
of [𝑛] with |F | = 𝑂 (𝑘2 𝑘 log 𝑛) such that for every 𝑘-element subset 𝐴 of [𝑛],
F | 𝐴 contains all 2 𝑘 subsets of 𝐴.
9. Let 𝐴1 , . . . , 𝐴𝑚 be 𝑟-element sets and 𝐵1 , . . . , 𝐵𝑚 be 𝑠-element sets. Suppose
𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵𝑖 = ∅ for each 𝑖, and for each 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗, either 𝐴𝑖 ∩ 𝐵 𝑗 ≠ ∅ or 𝐴 𝑗 ∩ 𝐵𝑖 ≠ ∅.
Prove that 𝑚 ≤ (𝑟 + 𝑠) 𝑟+𝑠 /(𝑟 𝑟 𝑠 𝑠 ).
10. ★ Show that in every non-2-colorable 𝑛-uniform hypergraph, one can find at
least 𝑛2 2𝑛−1


𝑛 unordered pairs of edges with each pair intersecting in exactly one
vertex.

15
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.