2014
DOI: 10.1017/s0963548314000832
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Short Proof of the Random Ramsey Theorem

Abstract: In this paper we give a short proof of the Random Ramsey Theorem of Rödl and Ruciński: for any graph F which contains a cycle and r 2, there exist constants c, C > 0 such thatThe proof of the 1-statement is based on the recent beautiful hypergraph container theorems by Saxton and Thomason, and Balogh, Morris and Samotij. The proof of the 0-statement is elementary.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
91
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(95 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We do this in the remainder of this section. Actually, our proof of Lemma follows the proof of Lemma 3.1 from . The main difference is that in a problematic copy of H was defined as a copy of H in which all edges are contained in two copies of H , while the definition in this paper allows the existence of one (but only one) edge that may be open.…”
Section: Proof Of the 0‐statement Of Theoremmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…We do this in the remainder of this section. Actually, our proof of Lemma follows the proof of Lemma 3.1 from . The main difference is that in a problematic copy of H was defined as a copy of H in which all edges are contained in two copies of H , while the definition in this paper allows the existence of one (but only one) edge that may be open.…”
Section: Proof Of the 0‐statement Of Theoremmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Actually, our proof of Lemma follows the proof of Lemma 3.1 from . The main difference is that in a problematic copy of H was defined as a copy of H in which all edges are contained in two copies of H , while the definition in this paper allows the existence of one (but only one) edge that may be open. As we shall see, this difference in definition is responsible for the fact that the proof goes through for triangles in , but does not here.…”
Section: Proof Of the 0‐statement Of Theoremmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Our proof is a generalization of an approach from [11] to hypergraphs and general Ramsey problems. It is essentially a first moment argument.…”
Section: Proof Of Theorem 18mentioning
confidence: 95%