![](/files/happy5.png)
![$ c $](/files/tex/dccee841f3f498c2c58fa6ae1c1403c5a88c5b8d.png)
![$ G $](/files/tex/b8e7ad0330f925492bf468b5c379baec88cf1b3d.png)
![$ S \subseteq G $](/files/tex/1443dce39cbce9606ca2c26bfb4ffbcf28ddb2c9.png)
![$ -S = S $](/files/tex/c931921f156211c8e73ee3e57353f799f2676a34.png)
![$ {\mathit Cayley}(G,S) $](/files/tex/f0cecf17b88dfdb3db14ed2c21bce70a47d051cd.png)
![$ > c \log |G| $](/files/tex/e224dcfe2b20fdd16ed3f4a07612dc76b28666fe.png)
The classic bounds from Ramsey theory show that every vertex graph must have either a clique or an independent set of size
and further random graphs almost surely have this property (using different values of
). The above conjecture asserts that every group has a Cayley graph with similar behavior.
Improving upon some earlier results of Agarwal et. al. [AAAS], Green [G] proved that there exists a constant so that whenever a set
is chosen at random, and we form the graph with vertex set
and two vertices
,
joined if
, then this graph almost surely has both maximum clique size and maximum independent size
. The reader should note that such graphs are not generally Cayley graphs - although the definition is similar.
As a word of caution, Green [G] also shows that a randomly chosen subset of the group almost surely has both max. clique and max. independent set of size
where
.
Bibliography
[AAAS] P. K. Agarwal, N. Alon, B. Aronov, S. Suri, Can visibility graphs be represented compactly? Discrete Comput. Geom. 12 (1994), no. 3, 347--365. MathSciNet
*[C] Problem BCC14.6 from the BCC Problem List (edited by Peter Cameron)
[G] B. Green, Counting sets with small sumset, and the clique number of random Cayley graphs, Combinatorica 25 (2005), no. 3, 307--326. MathSciNet
* indicates original appearance(s) of problem.