Definition 6 (plucking)
Double plucking algorithm
|
|
|
is defined by recursion on . If , let . Otherwise, let , thus . By the double Erdős-Rado
lemma we choose a sunflower of cardinality , s with petals and core . Furthermore let
and
; thus
s and s. Rewrite to that arises by replacing every by . Note that Now if , let . Otherwise, if , then we analogously pass from to . Proceeding this way we eventually arrive at with and then let .
Twice double plucking algorithm
|
|
|
is determined by . Note that .
Definition 8
For any or we’ll call the following operations ,
and sets , the approximators and approximations of operations , and sets , , respectively, which determine
double or twice double deviations with respect to the
accepted tests.
-
1.
(resp. ).
-
2.
(resp. ).
-
3.
-
4.
-
5.
-
6.
For any we let (:
functional cardinality of ). In particular . In the sequel we use
functional cardinality as our basic measure of the number of negative double
tests involved.
Upper bounds
Below we assume that is sufficiently large and .
Lemma 9
For any let and . Then
and . Let , so . Now if and , then .
Proof. For any , let
.
This yields by standard monotone arguments
, provided that v (cf. e.g. Appendix A).
Now for any and let
and
. Then
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which yields
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and hence
|
|
|
To establish the last assertion it will suffice to observe that for any ,
|
|
|
where for any we set (the probability). The latter holds by standard arguments as are independent events in the space (see also Appendix A).
Lemma 10
Let , for . Thus and .
Then requires elementary
pluckings. Moreover while . The same estimation also holds for and , respectively.
Proof. We argue as in the analogous monotone case using Lemmata 7, 9. Let s be the sunflower with petals and core that arises at elementary
plucking () and let be the corresponding plain graphs. Consider and corresponding and . is clear as elementary
pluckings replace some plain graphs by subgraphs and thereby preserve the
accepted positive double tests. Now consider . Let us estimate the total number
of fake negative double tests that arise after rewriting involved. Suppose
is obtained by substituting for every , where (cf. Definition 6). Let and . Now let be any fake negative double test created by this
substitution. That is, and hence and , although for every , we have . Let and note that for any we have , while s
contains the only common nodes of and . Furthermore by Lemma
9 we know that holds for every . Summing up, by Lemma 9 we obtain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence with regard to functional cardinality there are less than
|
|
|
fake negative double tests created by
the replacement .
Recall that by Lemma 7 there are elementary pluckings involved. This
yields
|
|
|
Hence .
Lemma 11
Let , and . So and Then and . The same estimation
also holds for and ,
respectively.
Proof. is analogous
to the inequality for . Consider . We adapt standard arguments used in the
“monotone” proofs (cf. e.g. [3], [8]). It is readily seen that
deviations can only arise by deleting a
for some when passing from
to (note that
can completely disappear, in which case ). So suppose and hence for some . Thus , while for . Moreover vv. Let us estimate for . Note
that and implies that
contains at most cliques and cliques ,
respectively. Thus Now
|
|
|
which by and Lemma 7 yields the result.