Discrepancy of Symmetric Products of Hypergraphs

For a hypergraph ${\mathcal H} = (V,{\mathcal E})$, its $d$--fold symmetric product is $\Delta^d {\mathcal H} = (V^d,\{E^d |E \in {\mathcal E}\})$. We give several upper and lower bounds for the $c$-color discrepancy of such products. In particular, we show that the bound ${disc}(\Delta^d {\mathcal H},2) \le {disc}({\mathcal H},2)$ proven for all $d$ in [B. Doerr, A. Srivastav, and P. Wehr, Discrepancy of {C}artesian products of arithmetic progressions, Electron. J. Combin. 11(2004), Research Paper 5, 16 pp.] cannot be extended to more than $c = 2$ colors. In fact, for any $c$ and $d$ such that $c$ does not divide $d!$, there are hypergraphs having arbitrary large discrepancy and ${disc}(\Delta^d {\mathcal H},c) = \Omega_d({disc}({\mathcal H},c)^d)$. Apart from constant factors (depending on $c$ and $d$), in these cases the symmetric product behaves no better than the general direct product ${\mathcal H}^d$, which satisfies ${disc}({\mathcal H}^d,c) = O_{c,d}({disc}({\mathcal H},c)^d)$.Comment: 12 pages, no figure

Discrepancy of Products of Hypergraphs

For a hypergraph $\mathcal{H} = (V,\mathcal{E})$, its $d$―fold symmetric product is $\Delta^d \mathcal{H} = (V^d,\{ E^d | E \in \mathcal{E} \})$. We give several upper and lower bounds for the $c$-color discrepancy of such products. In particular, we show that the bound $\textrm{disc}(\Delta^d \mathcal{H},2) \leq \textrm{disc}(\mathcal{H},2)$ proven for all $d$ in [B. Doerr, A. Srivastav, and P. Wehr, Discrepancy of Cartesian products of arithmetic progressions, Electron. J. Combin. 11(2004), Research Paper 5, 16 pp.] cannot be extended to more than $c = 2$ colors. In fact, for any $c$ and $d$ such that $c$ does not divide $d!$, there are hypergraphs having arbitrary large discrepancy and $\textrm{disc}(\Delta^d \mathcal{H},c) = \Omega_d(\textrm{disc}(\mathcal{H},c)^d)$. Apart from constant factors (depending on $c$ and $d$), in these cases the symmetric product behaves no better than the general direct product $\mathcal{H}^d$, which satisfies $\textrm{disc}(\mathcal{H}^d,c) = O_{c,d}(\textrm{disc}(\mathcal{H},c)^d)$

A foundation for probabilistic beliefs with or without atoms

We provide sufficient conditions for a qualitative probability (Bernstein, 1917; de Finetti, 1937; Koopman, 1940; Savage, 1954) that satisfies monotone continuity (Villegas, 1964; Arrow, 1970) to have a unique countably additive measure representation, generalizing Villegas (1964) to allow atoms. Unlike previous contributions, we do so without a cancellation or solvability axiom. First, we establish that when atoms contain singleton cores, unlikely cores—the requirement that the union of all cores is not more likely than its complement—is sufficient (Theorem 3). Second, we establish that strict third-order atom-swarming—the requirement that for each atom A, the less likely non-null events are (in an ordinal sense) more than three times as likely as A—is also sufficient (Theorem 5). This latter result applies to intertemporal preferences over streams of indivisible objects

Twin-width IV: ordered graphs and matrices

We establish a list of characterizations of bounded twin-width for hereditary, totally ordered binary structures. This has several consequences. First, it allows us to show that a (hereditary) class of matrices over a finite alphabet either contains at least $n!$ matrices of size $n \times n$, or at most $c^n$ for some constant $c$. This generalizes the celebrated Stanley-Wilf conjecture/Marcus-Tardos theorem from permutation classes to any matrix class over a finite alphabet, answers our small conjecture [SODA '21] in the case of ordered graphs, and with more work, settles a question first asked by Balogh, Bollob\'as, and Morris [Eur. J. Comb. '06] on the growth of hereditary classes of ordered graphs. Second, it gives a fixed-parameter approximation algorithm for twin-width on ordered graphs. Third, it yields a full classification of fixed-parameter tractable first-order model checking on hereditary classes of ordered binary structures. Fourth, it provides a model-theoretic characterization of classes with bounded twin-width.Comment: 53 pages, 18 figure

Views from a peak:Generalisations and descriptive set theory

This dissertation has two major threads, one is mathematical, namely descriptive set theory, the other is philosophical, namely generalisation in mathematics. Descriptive set theory is the study of the behaviour of definable subsets of a given structure such as the real numbers. In the core mathematical chapters, we provide mathematical results connecting descriptive set theory and generalised descriptive set theory. Using these, we give a philosophical account of the motivations for, and the nature of, generalisation in mathematics.In Chapter 3, we stratify set theories based on this descriptive complexity. The axiom of countable choice for reals is one of the most basic fragments of the axiom of choice needed in many parts of mathematics. Descriptive choice principles are a further stratification of this fragment by the descriptive complexity of the sets. We provide a separation technique for descriptive choice principles based on Jensen forcing. Our results generalise a theorem by Kanovei.Chapter 4 gives the essentials of a generalised real analysis, that is a real analysis on generalisations of the real numbers to higher infinities. This builds on work by Galeotti and his coauthors. We generalise classical theorems of real analysis to certain sets of functions, strengthening continuity, and disprove other classical theorems. We also show that a certain cardinal property, the tree property, is equivalent to the Extreme Value Theorem for a set of functions which generalize the continuous functions.The question of Chapter 5 is whether a robust notion of infinite sums can be developed on generalisations of the real numbers to higher infinities. We state some incompatibility results, which suggest not. We analyse several candidate notions of infinite sum, both from the literature and more novel, and show which of the expected properties of a notion of sum they fail.In Chapter 6, we study the descriptive set theory arising from a generalization of topology, κ-topology, which is used in the previous two chapters. We show that the theory is quite different from that of the standard (full) topology. Differences include a collapsing Borel hierarchy, a lack of universal or complete sets, Lebesgue’s ‘great mistake’ holds (projections do not increase complexity), a strict hierarchy of notions of analyticity, and a failure of Suslin’s theorem.Lastly, in Chapter 7, we give a philosophical account of the nature of generalisation in mathematics, and describe the methodological reasons that mathematicians generalise. In so doing, we distinguish generalisation from other processes of change in mathematics, such as abstraction and domain expansion. We suggest a semantic account of generalisation, where two pieces of mathematics constitute a generalisation if they have a certain relation of content, along with an increased level of generality