

Line 1: 
Line 1: 
   
− 
 
− 
 
− 
 
−  ==DHJ(k) implies equalslices VarnavidesDHJ(k)==
 
− 
 
−  This section is intended to fill the main gap in the section above. We would like to deduce from DHJ(k) that if <math>\mathcal{B}</math> is an equalslices dense subset of <math>[k]^n,</math> then with positive probability an equalslices random combinatorial line is contained in <math>\mathcal{A}.</math>
 
− 
 
−  To prove this it is enough to do the following. Let the density of <math>\mathcal{B}</math> be <math>\theta,</math> let <math>\zeta</math> be some positive constant that depends on <math>\theta</math> only, and let M be large enough that every subset of <math>[k]^M</math> of density at least <math>\zeta</math> contains a combinatorial line. We would now like to find a positive linear combination <math>\nu</math> of characteristic functions of Mdimensional subspaces of <math>[k]^n</math> with the following properties.
 
− 
 
−  *<math>\nu</math> is a probability measure: that is, it sums to 1.
 
− 
 
−  *If <math>\mathcal{B}</math> is any subset of <math>[k]^n</math> with equalslices density <math>\theta>0,</math> then <math>\nu(\mathcal{B})\geq\eta=\eta(\theta)>0.</math>
 
− 
 
−  *Let <math>\mathcal{L}</math> be a set of combinatorial lines. Define the <math>\nu</math>density of <math>\mathcal{L}</math> to be the probability that a random line L belongs to <math>\mathcal{L}</math> if you choose it by first picking a <math>\nu</math>random subspace and then picking a random line (uniformly) from that subspace. (See below for the definition of <math>\nu</math>random subspace.) Then if the <math>\nu</math>density of <math>\mathcal{L}</math> is at least <math>c,</math> then the equalslices density of <math>\mathcal{L}</math> is at least <math>c'(c).</math>
 
− 
 
−  Let us see why these three properties are enough. Let the Mdimensional subspaces of
 
−  <math>[k]^n</math> be enumerated as <math>S_1,\dots,S_N,</math> and let <math>\sigma_i</math> be the uniform probability measure on <math>S_i.</math> Then we are looking for a convex combination <math>\nu=\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i\sigma_i</math> of the measures <math>\sigma_i.</math> Given such a <math>\nu,</math> we define a <math>\nu</math>''random subspace'' to be what you get when you choose <math>S_i</math> with probability <math>\lambda_i.</math>
 
− 
 
−  Suppose we have found <math>\nu</math> with the three properties above, and let
 
−  <math>\mathcal{B}</math> be a set of equalslices density <math>\theta.</math> Then by hypothesis we have that <math>\nu(\mathcal{B})\geq\eta.</math> This implies that if <math>S_i</math> is a <math>\nu</math>random subspace, then the probability that <math>\sigma_i(\mathcal{B})\geq\eta/2</math> is at least <math>\eta/2.</math> If we have taken <math>\zeta</math> to be <math>\eta/2,</math> then each subspaces <math>S_i</math> for which <math>\sigma_i(\mathcal{B})\geq\eta/2</math> contains a combinatorial line in <math>\mathcal{B}.</math> Since an Mdimensional subspace contains <math>(k+1)^M</math> combinatorial lines, this implies that the <math>\nu</math>density of the set of all combinatorial lines in <math>\mathcal{B}</math> is at least <math>\eta/2(k+1)^M.</math> Hence, by the third property, the equalslices density of this set of lines is at least <math>c(\theta,k,M)>0.</math>
 
− 
 
−  It remains to define an appropriate measure <math>\nu.</math> I think probably a fairly obvious equalslices measure on Mdimensional subspaces will do the trick, but will have to wait to check this.
 
− 
 
−  Here is a preliminary attempt to do the check. This will be tidied up at some point if it works. Let us define a random Mdimensional subspace S by randomly choosing numbers <math>a_1+\dots+a_M=n</math> and then randomly partitioning <math>[n]</math> into wildcard sets <math>Z_1,\dots,Z_M</math> with <math>Z_i=a_i.</math> Then <math>\nu</math> is the measure you get by choosing a random subspace in this way and then choosing a random point in that subspace.
 
− 
 
−  Now <math>\nu</math> is nothing like the equalslices density, since a typical point will have roughly equal numbers of each coordinate value. However, the probability that we deviate from this average is small as a function of M rather than as a function of n, so the second property looks fine.
 
− 
 
−  A similar argument appears to deal with the third property. It may be a bore to make it rigorous, but I definitely believe it.
 
− 
 
−  <math></math><math></math><math></math><math></math><math></math><math></math><math></math><math></math>
 