Before proceeding with the details of the argument, let’s pause to get the general idea behind the proof. We choose integers
\(n\) and
\(s\) with
\(n>s\text{,}\) and it will eventually be clear how large they need to be in terms of
\(g\) and
\(t\text{.}\) We will then consider a random graph on vertex set
\(\{1,2,\dots,n\}\text{,}\) and just as before, for each
\(i\) and
\(j\) with
\(1\le i\lt j\le n\text{,}\) the probability that the pair
\(ij\) is an edge is
\(p\text{,}\) but now
\(p\) will depend on
\(n\text{.}\) Of course, the probability that any given pair is an edge is completely independent of all other pairs.
Our first goal is to choose the values of
\(n\text{,}\) \(s\) and
\(p\) so that with high probability, a random graph does not have an independent set of size
\(s\text{.}\) You might think as a second goal, we would try to get a random graph without small cycles. But this goal is too restrictive. Instead, we just try to get a graph in which there are relatively few small cycles. In fact, we want the number of small cycles to be less than
\(n/2\text{.}\) Then we will remove one vertex from each small cycles, resulting in a graph with at least
\(n/2\) vertices, having no small cycles and no independent set of size
\(s\text{.}\) The chromatic number of this graph is at least
\(n/2s\text{,}\) so we will want to have the inequality
\(n>2st\text{.}\)
Now for some details. Let \(X_1\) be the random variable that counts the number of \(s\)-element independent sets. Then
\begin{equation*}
E(X_1)=\binom{n}{s}(1-p)^{C(s,2)}
\end{equation*}
Now we want
\(E(X_1)\lt 1/4\text{.}\) Since
\(C(n,s)\le n^s=e^{s\ln n}\) and
\((1-p)^{C(s,2)}\le e^{-ps^2/2}\text{,}\) it suffices to set
\(s=2\ln n/p\text{.}\) By
Markov’s Inequality, the probability that
\(X_1\) exceeds
\(1/2\ge 2E(X_1)\) is less than
\(1/2\text{.}\)
Now let \(X_2\) count the number of cycles in \(G\) of size at most \(g\text{.}\) Then
\begin{equation*}
E(X_2)\le \sum_{i=3}^g n(n-1)(n-2)\dots(n-i+1) p^i\le g(pn)^g.
\end{equation*}
Now, we want
\(E(X_2)\le n/4\text{,}\) and an easy calculation shows that
\(g(np)^g\le n/4\) when
\(p=n^{1/g-1}/10\text{.}\) Again by
Markov’s Inequality, the probability that
\(X_2\) exceeds
\(n/2\ge 2E(X_2)\) is less than
\(1/2\text{.}\)
We conclude that there is a graph
\(G\) for which
\(X_1=0\) and
\(X_2\le n/2\text{.}\) Remove a vertex from each of the small cycles in
\(G\) and let
\(H\) be the graph that remains. Clearly,
\(H\) has at least
\(n/2\) vertices, no cycle of size at most
\(g\) and no independent set of size
\(s\text{.}\) Finally, the inequality
\(n>2st\) requires
\(n^{1/g}/(40\ln n)>t\text{.}\)