{"id":368,"date":"2013-11-03T17:00:29","date_gmt":"2013-11-03T22:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/matroidunion.org\/?p=368"},"modified":"2013-11-03T17:00:29","modified_gmt":"2013-11-03T22:00:29","slug":"growth-rates-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/?p=368","title":{"rendered":"Growth Rates III"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><\/strong><strong>Too dense to measure?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m back, writing more about growth rates of matroids in minor-closed classes. In the last two posts, I&#8217;ve been talking about the growth rate function $h_{\\mathcal{M}}$ of a class, which measures the maximum number of elements in a simple rank-$n$ matroid in the class, or (essentially) equivalently the maximum number of points in a rank-$n$ matroid of the class, which is not necessarily required to be simple. In this post I&#8217;ll stop using the &#8216;function&#8217; notation and instead just state things more explicitly for individual matroids.<\/p>\n<p>The reason for this is that I&#8217;ll be writing this time about matroids whose growth rate function is infinite, but still seem &#8216;sparse&#8217; compared to random matroids. \u00a0The easiest example of this is the class of bicircular matroids, which are the graph-like matroids obtained by starting from a basis B and freely extending lines spanned by pairs of elements of B any number of times. (Technically we have to close under minors also). These are the same class as the matroids having a real-representation where each column contains at most two nonzero entries and all nonzero entries are algebraically independent.<\/p>\n<p>An easy observation is that a rank-$n$ bicircular matroid can have arbitrarily many points, as you can keep adding new points on any line between a pair of basis elements and stay bicircular. Therefore the class of bicircular matroids contains all simple rank-$2$ matroids and there is no bound on its growth rate function. The reason this seems like a problem, though, isn&#8217;t that we&#8217;re unhappy with matroids having unbounded numbers of points, it&#8217;s that the bicircular matroids seem intuitively quite sparse.<\/p>\n<p>To make this concrete, we can make the easy observation that every rank-$n$ bicircular matroid is the union of at most $\\binom{n}{2}$ rank-$2$ sets. This is an unusual property that dramatically separates bicircular matroids from random matroids, and it&#8217;s how we&#8217;ll talk about the more general notion of density this post is about.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Covering Number<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If $M$ is a matroid (of rank at least $a$)\u00a0and $a$ is a positive integer, then $\\tau_a(M)$ will denote the minimum size of a collection of rank-$a$ sets with union $E(M)$. We call this the $a$-<em>covering number\u00a0<\/em>of $M$. It is not too hard to see that if $M \\cong \\mathrm{PG}(n-1,q)$ then $\\tau_a(M)$ is roughly $\\frac{q^r-1}{q^a-1}$ and that if $M \\cong M(K_n)$ then $\\tau_a(M)$ is roughly $\\binom{n+1}{2}\/\\binom{a+1}{2}$, so $\\tau_a$ behaves pretty similarly to counting points for nice matroids like cliques and projective geometries. However, unlike the &#8216;number of points&#8217; parameter, covering number enables us to say the bicircular matroids are only quadratically dense; if $M$ is a rank-$n$ bicircular matroid then $\\tau_2(M) \\le \\binom{n}{2}$. This seems to do much better justice to their structure.<\/p>\n<p>Given an $a$, it is still easy to construct fixed-rank matroids for which $\\tau_a$ is arbitrarily large. The easiest construction is just the uniform matroid $U_{a+1,b}$. In covering such a matroid with rank-$a$ sets there isn&#8217;t anything clever you can do; all the rank-$a$ sets have just $a$ elements and in the end you need $\\tau_a(U_{a+1,b}) = \\left\\lceil\\frac{b}{a}\\right\\rceil$ sets to do the job. However, there is a beautiful partial converse to this statement due to Geelen and Kabell [gk09], who also introduced the parameter.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Theorem 1: <\/strong>If $r \\ge a$ and $M$ is a rank-$r$ matroid with no $U_{a+1,b}$-minor then $\\tau_a(M) \\le \\binom{b-1}{a}^{r-a}$.<\/p>\n<p>Just like Kung&#8217;s theorem did for counting points \u00a0(see my first entry), this result provides a perfect description of which minor-closed classes have the property that $\\tau_a$ is bounded above by a function of rank; they are exactly those that do not contain all rank-$(a+1)$ uniform matroids. Jim Geelen conjectured much more than this, though, in his excellent paper [g08] on excluding a uniform matroid as a minor. He postulated that the growth rate theorem almost survives the generalisation to $\\tau_a$ unchanged:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conjecture 1:\u00a0<\/strong>If $a$ is an integer and $\\mathcal{M}$ is a minor-closed class of matroids, then either<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>$\\tau_a(M) \\le c r(M)$ for all $M \\in \\mathcal{M}$;<\/li>\n<li>$\\tau_a(M) \\le c r(M)^2$ for all $M \\in \\mathcal{M}$ and $\\mathcal{M}$ contains all bicircular matroids or all graphic matroids;<\/li>\n<li>there is a prime power $q$ so that $\\tau_a(M) \\le c q^{r(M)}$ for all $M \\in \\mathcal{M}$, and $\\mathcal{M}$ contains all GF$(q)$-representable matroids; or<\/li>\n<li>$\\mathcal{M}$ contains all rank-$(a+1)$ uniform matroids.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>This conjecture, which is very probably true, is quite striking; it would tell us that \u00a0$\\tau_a$-density is &#8216;controlled&#8217; by geometry- or graph-like matroids in any minor-closed class for which it is not a useless measure of density. The only classes left to worry about would be the ones that contain all uniform matroids of\u00a0<em>every\u00a0<\/em>rank, and those are much easier than the bicircular matroids to dismiss as truly &#8216;wild&#8217; or &#8216;infinitely dense&#8217; classes.<\/p>\n<p>Jim and I made some progress [gn12,n13] towards Conjecture 1, proving the following:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Theorem 2:\u00a0<\/strong>Let $a$ be an integer and $\\mathcal{M}$ be a minor-closed class of matroids. Either<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>$\\tau_a(M) \\le r(M)^c$ for all $M \\in \\mathcal{M}$;<\/li>\n<li>there is a prime power $q$ so that $\\tau_a(M) \\le c q^{r(M)}$ for all $M \\in \\mathcal{M}$, and $\\mathcal{M}$ contains all GF$(q)$-representable matroids; or<\/li>\n<li>$\\mathcal{M}$ contains all rank-$(a+1)$ uniform matroids.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>This separates the &#8216;exponential&#8217; classes from the polynomial ones. We&#8217;d really like to know more, though; the quadratic and linear part of the conjecture seems quite a lot harder.<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime, it would still be great to understand the parameter $\\tau_a$ in more specific settings. Here is a very concrete problem:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Problem 1:\u00a0<\/strong>Let $M$ be a rank-$r$ $\\mathbb{R}$-representable matroid with no $U_{3,6}$-minor. Find an upper bound on $\\tau_2(M)$ in terms of $r$.<\/p>\n<p>Theorem 1 gives an upper bound of $10^{r-2}$ and, since projective geometries are not real-representable, Theorem 2 gives $\\tau_2(M) \\le r^c$ for some constant $c$, but neither of these are particularly satisfactory. If Conjecture 1 holds then the answer should be quadratic in $r$, but it would be nice for it to be a quadratic with reasonable coefficients.<\/p>\n<p>I also believe that, despite the non-committal constants in Theorem 2, the way that $\\tau_a$ behaves in exponentially dense classes is somewhat reasonable. There are some issues when computing $\\tau_a(\\mathrm{PG}(r-1,q)$ when the geometry doesn&#8217;t partition neatly into nice rank-$a$ flats (the answer still turns out to be equal to the obvious lower bound), but modulo a small multiplicative factor, something like the following should be true, and possibly quite approachable by the same kind of techniques that were used in the setting of excluding a rank-$2$ minor:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conjecture 2:\u00a0<\/strong>If $\\epsilon &gt; 0$ and $M$ is a matroid with no $U_{a+1,b}$-minor and of sufficiently large rank, then $\\tau_a(M) \\le (1 + \\epsilon)\\tau_a(\\mathrm{PG}(r(M)-1,q))$, where $q$ is the largest prime power so that $U_{a+1,b}$-is GF$(q)$-representable.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, the matroids with no $U_{a+1,b}$-minor should be asymptotically no denser than the projective geometries with no $U_{a+1,b}$-minor.<\/p>\n<p>See you next time!<\/p>\n<p><strong>References<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>[g08] J. Geelen, Some open problems on excluding a uniform matroid.\u00a0<em>Adv. in Appl. Math., 41(4):628-637, 2008.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong><\/strong>[gk09] J. Geelen, K. Kabell, the Erdos-Posa property for matroid circuits.\u00a0<em>J Combin. Theory Ser. B, 99(2):407-419, 2009.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>[gn12] J. Geelen, P. Nelson, Projective geometries in exponentially dense matroids. I, \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1209.1496\">arXiv:1209.1496<\/a>\u00a0[math.CO]<\/p>\n<p>[n13] P. Nelson, Projective geometries in exponentially dense matroids. II,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1306.0244\">arXiv:1306.0244<\/a>\u00a0[math.CO]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Too dense to measure?\u00a0 I&#8217;m back, writing more about growth rates of matroids in minor-closed classes. In the last two posts, I&#8217;ve been talking about the growth rate function $h_{\\mathcal{M}}$ of a class, which measures the maximum number of elements &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/?p=368\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-matroids"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=368"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":380,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368\/revisions\/380"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/matroidunion.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}