2
$\begingroup$

A k-cube in $X$ is a function $\psi:\{-1,1\}^k\to (X,d)$.

An edge of a cube is a pair of points $\{\psi(\epsilon_1),\psi(\epsilon_2)\}$ in $X$ such that $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2 $ differ in exactly 1 coordinate. Denote the set of all edges by $E$.

An diagonal of a cube is a pair of points $\{\psi(\epsilon_1),\psi(\epsilon_2)\}$ in $X$ such that $\epsilon_1=-\epsilon_2 $ . Denote the set of all diagonal by $D$.

For any fixed $\epsilon\in\{-1,1\}^k$, denote $E_{\epsilon}$ the set of edges from $\epsilon$ to $-\epsilon$ obtained by changing the the coordinates sucessively, e.g. $E_{(1,-1,1)}=\{ \{(1,-1,1),(-1,-1,1)\},\{(-1,-1,1),(-1,1,1)\},\{(-1,1,1),(-1,1,-1)\} \}$. It is clear that $|E_{\epsilon}|=k$. By triangle inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz we have

$$ k\sum_{E_{\epsilon}} \text{edge}^2 \ge \text{diag}^2(\epsilon) $$

Summing over all $\epsilon$ gives

$$ k\sum_{E} \text{edge}^2 \ge \sum_D\text{diag}^2. $$

Now, assume that there is a (very small) $\theta\in(0,1)$ such that

$$ k\sum_{E} \text{edge}^2 \ge \sum_D\text{diag}^2 \ge k(1-\theta)^2\sum_{E} \text{edge}^2, $$

we can find $\epsilon_0$ satisfying

$$ k\sum_{E_{\epsilon_0}} \text{edge}^2 \ge \text{diag}^2(\epsilon_0) \ge 2^{-k+1}k(1-\theta)^2\sum_{E} \text{edge}^2. $$

It is claimed that, under the assumption, we have $$ \text{diag}^2(\epsilon_0)\ge k\left[(1-\theta)^2 \sum_E\text{edge}^2 - \sum_{E\backslash E_{\epsilon_0}}\text{edge}^2 \right]. $$ Why is it so?

This might be very easy but I really can't think of a way. This inequality is used in the proof of Bourgain-Milman-Wolfson that we can always embed an arbitrary large Hamming cube into a metric space with no non-trivial metric type.

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but $\theta=\frac {\delta^2}{k^22^{k+12}}$ some $\delta\in (0,1)$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

By now surely you already know the answer, but here it is anyway. It follows from the assumption on $\theta$ that $$ \text{diag}^2(\epsilon_0)\ge k(1-\theta)^2 \sum_E\text{edge}^2 - \sum_{D_0} \text{diag}^2 $$ where $D_0$ is the set of diagonals excluding the one determined by $\epsilon_0$. We already know that for every $\epsilon$ we have $$ k\sum_{E_{\epsilon}} \text{edge}^2 \ge \text{diag}^2(\epsilon), $$ so adding up over all the diagonals except the one determined by $\epsilon_0$, we have $$ k \sum_{E\backslash E_{\epsilon_0}}\text{edge}^2 \ge \sum_{D_0} \text{diag}^2 $$ and the desired inequality follows immediately.

The key here is the remark right after equation (2.1.2) in the Bourgain-Milman-Wolfson paper: "the edges, belonging to identity paths of different diagonals, are all distinct".

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ As you've guessed correctly, I have figured this out months ago. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your kind contribution. $\endgroup$
    – BigbearZzz
    Commented Aug 12, 2017 at 3:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.