Arxiv:2107.04167V1 [Math.CO]

arXiv:2107.04167v1 [math.CO] 9 Jul 2021 ac h Kövári–Sós–Turán the match for bound eiiiy e 8 ,2,1,6 4 o oeo h variation the of some for 24] 6, 17, 20, 5, [8, see flexibility, 1,p 2,[1 .6,[4 .27,[6 ojcue2.24]). Conjecture [16, 257], p. [14, 6], p. for [11, 52], p. [19, oainhsbe mrvdb ¨rd 1] h Kövári–S´ the ex( Füredi [15], on by bound improved been has notation h osrcini lvrueo om vrfiiefils Th fields. h It finite varieties. over random norms t uses of [4] use from originating clever structions a is construction The biul,w a ees h oe of roles the reverse may we Obviously, mrvn ntepeiu osrcinb Kollár, Rónyai by construction previous the on improving Kövári–Sós–Turán general for bound K if h ags ubro de nan in edges of number largest the Turán problem. The Introduction 1 lsi hoe fEdo n tn 1]gvsa asymptotic an gives [12] Stone Erd˝os and of theorem classic yUS apyr hog S AERgatDMS-1555149. grant CAREER NSF through taxpayers U.S. by on s,t s < t ∗ eateto ahmtclSine,Crei elnUniv Mellon Carnegie Sciences, Mathematical of Department nti ok eueanvlvrino h admagbacme algebraic random the of version novel a use we work, this In o bipartite For s soe.Seicly Kövári, Specifically, proved Turán Sós [19] open. and is s ihΩ( with xdfridnsubgraph forbidden fixed and 2 = o xml,[]otis()ol for only (1) obtains [4] example, For . o rmnwo edsusol h case the only discuss we on now from So, . h uńpolmak o h ags ubro de nan in edges of number largest the for asks Turán problem The xrmlgah ihu xoetal-ml bicliques exponentially-small without graphs Extremal n ,K n, 2 − s 1 F /s se[6 eto ]frasre) hr r nytoconst two only are there survey), a for 3] Section [16, (see 3 = s,t uhls skon vntesmls aewhen case simplest the Even known. is less much , de acigteuprbudo Kövári, of Turán. Sós bound and upper the matching edges ) .Mn eerhr ojcueta h Kövári–Sós–Tur the that conjecture researchers Many ). Let ex( F F ecntutanwfml fgah o containing not graphs of family new a construct We . ,K n, eafie rp.TeTra rbe ssfrtevleo ex( of value the for asks Turán problem The graph. fixed a be n s,t vre rp o otiigacp of copy a containing not graph -vertex ex( > s Ω = ) s ,K n, t and hti nyepnnilin exponential only is that uy1,2021 12, July .Tefis sdet ln ńa n zbo[]who, Szabó [2] Rónyai and Alon, to due is first The 3. s oi Bukh Boris s,t ( t Abstract t n = ) ooti ex( obtain to 2 ≥ − 1 1 s t /s O 4 ≥ s if ) s,t h datg fteecntutosi their is constructions these of advantage The . s ( riy itbrh A123 S.Spotdi part in Supported USA. 15213, PA Pittsburgh, ersity, n huhteipii osati h big-Oh the in constant implicit the Though . ∗ 2 shtet rvddifro eedneof dependence inferior provided hitherto as − oee,aatfo h ueosresults numerous the from apart However, n applications. and s n zbo[8,soe that showed Szabó [18], and 1 sTra on ean h nyupper only the remains os–Turán bound > t /s ,K n, o ex( for that ) . ( s,t s eod oercn ls fcon- of class recent more second, e n − = ) vre rp o otiiga containing not graph -vertex ,F n, 1)! F s hdt osrc rpsthat graphs construct to thod O . . when ) sacmlt iatt graph bipartite complete a is s,t ( n 2 a on stgt(e.g., tight is án bound − F 1 F /t K sasbrp.The subgraph. a as ,wihi superior is which ), s,t sntbipartite. not is utosattaining ructions for , t = C s , ,F n, (1) ), Theorem 1. Let s ≥ 2. Then

2−1/s s 4s2/3 ex(n, Ks,t)=Ωs(n ) if t> 9 · s .

The Zarankiewicz problem. Closely related to the Turán problem for Ks,t-free graphs is the problem of Zarankiewicz [25]. It is the asymmetric version of the Turán problem. It is well-known that in the study of the order of growth of ex(n, F ) we may assume that the n-vertex graph is bipartite. To distinguish the two parts of a bipartite graph, we shall call them left and right. A copy of Ks,t in a bipartite graph G can be situated in two ways: either the s vertices are in the left part, or the s vertices are in the right part. In the Zarankiewicz problem, we forbid only the former case. So, we say that G is a sided graph if it is bipartite with distinguished left and right parts, and say that Zarankiewicz problem asks for the estimate on the number of edges in a sided graph not containing Ks,t, which is regarded as a sided graph with s vertices on the left and t vertices on the right. An important consequence of making the graph bipartite with distinguished parts is that the two parts can (possibly) be of very unequal size. This often occurs in applications (see e.g. [1, 23]). With this in mind, define z(m,n; s,t) as the largest number of edges in a sided graph with m vertices on the left and n vertices on the right that contains no sided Ks,t. The bound of Kövári, Sós and Turán for the Zarankiewicz problem takes the form

1−1/s z(m,n; s,t)= Os,t(mn ).

In the symmetric case when m = n, the best known constructions for Zarankiewicz problem are the same as the best bipartite constructions for the Tur´an problem. This is not so for our approach: we are able to take the advantage of the fact that only one orientation of Ks,t is forbidden to obtain a lower bound on z(n,n; s,t) that is superior to the corresponding bound for ex(n, Ks,t) in Theorem 1.

k−2 Theorem 2. a) Suppose s,t,m,n,k ≥ 3 are integers satisfying log m ≤ s and k ≤ s . n k! log2k s 2 log3 s Then 1−1/s s 2s/ log s z(m,n; s,t)=Ωs(mn ) if t > k · e . 2−1/s s+o(s) In particular, z(n,n; s,t)=Ωs(n ) for t> 3 .

1 1+2 log s b) For each s ≥ 3 there is a constant cs > 0 such that if logn m ≤ cst , then

1−1/s z(m,n; s,t)=Ωs(mn ).

1−1/s Part (b) is an improvement on the result of Conlon [7], who proved the Ωs(mn ) bound ′ 1/(s−1) under the condition logn m ≤ cst . In the same article, Conlon asked if the bound holds for logn m ≤ t/s, which would be tight if true.

Paper organization. We begin by collecting the algebraic tools we require in Section 2. The concept of an m-independent set, which is central to the proof of Theorem 1, is introduced in Section 3. The m-independent varieties used in Theorem 1 are constructed in Sections 4 and 5. Finally, in Sections 6 and 7 we prove Theorems 1 and 2 respectively.

2 Acknowledgments. I am thankful to Chris Cox for extensive feedback on an earlier version of this paper. I am grateful to Jacob Tsimerman for discussions on numerous topics related to this paper, and especially for motivating me to prove Lemma 18 in its current form.

2 Algebraic tools

To make this paper maximally accessible, we tried to keep the use of algebra to the minimum. In particular, we use counting arguments even when similar algebraic arguments could have provided slightly superior numeric constants. Despite this, we require basic familiarity with algebraic geometry on the level of the ﬁrst chapter of Shafarevich’s book [21]. We collect the other algebraic tools in this section.

Varieties and their Fq-points. The integer q will denote a prime power. We shall work exclusively with fields Fq and Fq All varieties in this paper are quasi-projective over the field Fq. We write V(f1,...,ft) for the projective variety cut out by homogeneous polynomials f1,...,ft. We denote the vector space of homogeneous polynomials of degree m in b + 1 variables with coefficients in a b Fq by Fq[x0,...,xb]m. We shall also work with products of projective spaces P × P . The space of ′ bihomogeneous polynomials of bidegree (m,m ) on such a product will be denoted by Fq[x0,...,xa]m⊗ Fq[x0,...,xb]m′ . The graphs we shall construct in the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 will consist of the Fq-points of b certain varieties. We denote the Fq-points of a variety V ⊆ P by V (Fq) or (if the variety V is a b complicated expression) by V ∩P (Fq). We shall use the following bounds on the number of Fq-points.

Lemma 3 (Weakening of [9, Corollary 3.3]). Suppose V ⊆ Pb is a k-dimensional variety of degree d. k Then |V (Fq)|≤ d|P (Fq)|.

b Lemma 4. a) Let m1,...,mr be positive integers, and let Y ⊆ P (Fq) be a non-empty set. Suppose that g1,...,gr ∈ Fq[x0,...,xb] are random homogeneous polynomials of degrees deg gi = mi. Then |Y | 4qr Pr |Y ∩ V(g ,...,g )|≤ ≤ . (2) 1 r 2qr |Y |

a b b) The same holds for bihomogeneous polynomials, i.e., if Y ⊆ P (Fq) × P (Fq) is a non-empty ′ set and g1,...,gr are random bihomogeneous polynomials of bidegree deg gi = (mi,mi) with ′ mi,mi ≥ 1, then (2) holds.

Proof. For a point y ∈ Y , let Ry be the indicator random variable of the event y ∈ V(g1,...,gr). ′ r Let y,y ∈ Y be two distinct points. We claim that E[Ry] = E[Ry′ ] = 1/q and that the random variables Ry and Ry′ are independent. To see this in the case (a), apply the change of coordinates so ′ that y =[1:0:0: . . . : 0] and y =[0:1:0: . . . : 0]. The polynomial gi vanishes at y if and only m ′ m if the coeﬃcient of x0 vanishes. Similarly, gi(y ) = 0 if and only if the coeﬃcient of x1 vanishes. In ′ ′ ′ ′ a ′ b ′ the case (b), write y = (ya,yb) and y = (ya,yb) with ya,ya ∈ P (Fq) and yb,yb ∈ P (Fq). Since y 6= y ′ a b we may assume that yb 6= yb (by swapping the roles of P and P if necessary). We can then change

3 b the coordinates on P in the same way as in the case (a), and observe that vanishing of gi at y and y′ depends on disjoint sets of coeﬃcients. This proves the claim.

Let R = y∈Y Ry. From the pairwise independence of the Ry’s, it follows that P 1 1 r Var[R]= Var[Ry]= qr (1 − qr )|Y | ≤ |Y |/q . yX∈Y r Since E[R]= y E[Ry]= |Y |/q , Chebyshev’s inequality then implies that P Pr |R − |Y |/qr|≥ λ |Y |/qr ≤ λ−2, p and the lemma follows upon taking λ = |Y |/4qr. p Bézout’s inequality. For a reducible variety V ⊆ Pb, define the total degree deg(V ) to be the sum of the degrees of the irreducible components of V . Lemma 5 (Bézout’s inequality, [13, p. 228, Example 12.3.1]). Let V and W be two varieties in Pb. Then deg(V ∩ W ) ≤ deg(V ) deg(W ).

Hilbert functions. For a homogeneous ideal I, the Hilbert function HI(m) is deﬁned as the codi- def mension of Im = I ∩ Fq[x0,...,xb]m in Fq[x0,...,xb]m. Equivalently, if I = I(V ) is the homogeneous ideals of polynomials vanishing on a variety V , then HI(m) is the dimension of the subspace of functions on V induced by all homogeneous polynomials of degree m. We shall use the following bound on the Hilbert function. Lemma 6. Let V be a variety of dimension k in Pb. Then its Hilbert function satisﬁes m + k H (m) ≥ . I(V ) m Though more general bounds are known (e.g. [22, Theorem 2.4]), we give a proof for completeness.

Proof. By [21, Theorem 1.15 and Corollary 1.6] there is a linear projection π : V → Pk, which is ﬁnite and surjective. Then the pullback of a homogeneous polynomial of degree m on Pk is a homogeneous polynomial of degree m on V . The result follows since the space of homogeneous degree-m polynomials k m+k on P is of dimension m , and the pullback map has trivial kernel. We use Hilbert functions to bound the probability that a random polynomial vanishes on a given variety.

b Lemma 7. Let V be any variety in P . Let g ∈ Fq[x0,...,xb] be a random homogeneous degree-m polynomial. Then the probability that g vanishes on V is

−HI(V )(m) Pr[g|V = 0] ≤ q .

Proof. By the deﬁnition of the Hilbert function, HI(V )(m) is the codimension (over Fq) of I(V )m in Fq[x0,...,xb]m. This implies that the codimension of I(V )m ∩ Fq[x0,...,xb] in Fq[x0,...,xb]m is at least HI(V )(m). Since Pr[g|V = 0] = Pr[g ∈ I(V )m ∩ Fq[x0,...,xb]], the lemma follows.

4 3 Deﬁnition and uses of m-independence

b If t is small compared to b, then the Hilbert function of t generic points in P is HI({p1,...,pt})(m)= t for m ≥ 1. The point sets with HI({p1,...,pt})(m)= t enjoy important independence property. The key to our construction of Tur´an graphs will be a bound on the dimension of the locus of sets {p1,...,pt} that lack this property.

b Deﬁnition 8. We say that points p1,...,pt ∈ P are m-dependent if HI({p1,...,pt})(m) < t. We furthermore say that they are minimally m-dependent if no proper subset of these points is m-dependent.

Definition 9. A set X ⊂ Pb is called s-wise m-independent if no s distinct points of V are m-dependent. Though we define m-dependence via Hilbert functions, there are two other ways to think about the concept that will be useful. The first way is to think of a homogeneous degree-m polynomial f on Pb as a linear form in its coefficients. Specialization of f to f(p) gives distinct linear forms for b distinct p ∈ P . It is easy to see from the definition of m-dependence that the points p1,...,pt are b+m m-dependent if and only if f(p1),...,f(pt) are linearly dependent as linear forms in m variables. The second way to understand m-dependence is via linear forms. To each point p ∈ Pb one can as- sociate a linear form ℓ in b+1 variables defined by ℓ(x) def= hx,pi. Because points in the projective space are defined only up to a multiplication by a non-zero scalar, this linear form is too defined up to a mul- b tiplication by a non-zero scalar. If p1,...,pt ∈ P are any t points, and ℓ1,...,ℓt are the corresponding m m linear forms in b + 1 variables, then p1,...,pt are m-dependent if and only if ℓ1(x) ,...,ℓt(x) are linearly dependent. Indeed, the coefficients in the equations f(p1) = 0,...,f(pt) = 0 are precisely m m the coefficients in the forms ℓ1(x) ,...,ℓt(x) and so this criterion for m-dependence is equivalent to the criterion from the last paragraph. If points p1,...,pt are not m-dependent, we say that they are m-independent. The usefulness of these definitions comes from the combination of two simple observations:

a Proposition 10. Suppose that v1, . . . , vs ∈ P (Fq) are m-independent points. Pick a random polynomial g ∈ Fq[x0,...,xa]m ⊗Fq[y0,...,yb]m′ uniformly among all bihomogeneous polynomials of bidegree ′ a b (m,m ) on P × P . Then s random polynomials g(v1,y),...,g(vs,y) ∈ Fq[y0,...,yb]m are mutually independent.

β β Proof. Write g as g(x,y)= |β|=m′ y gβ(x). Since the coefficient of y in h(vi,y) is gβ(vi), it suffices to show that gβ(v1),...,gβ(Pvs) are independent for every β. Think of gβ(vi) as a linear function of the coefficients of gβ. By the alternative definition of m-independence discussed above, the linear functions gβ(v1),...,gβ(vs) are linearly independent. Since the coefficients of gβ are chosen independently and uniformly from Fq, this implies that gβ(v1),...,gβ(vs) are independent.

Deﬁne the function def m + k Mk(t) = min m : ≥ t . n k o Recall that a variety W is said to be of pure dimension k if all of its irreducible components are of dimension k.

5 Proposition 11. Let 0 ≤ s ≤ k ≤ b be integers, and let W ⊆ Pb be a variety of pure dimension k and degree at most D.

a) If h1,...,hs are independent random homogeneous polynomials of degree m in b + 1 variables and Fq-coeﬃcients, then − −(k s+1+m) Pr dim(W ∩ V(h1,...,hs)) > k − s ≤ Cq m , where the constant C = C(k,m,D) > 0 depends only on k,m and D.

b) Let T and δ1,...,δs be positive integers satisfying δi ≥ Mk−i+1(T ). If h1,...,hs are independent random homogeneous polynomials of degrees deg hi = δi in b + 1 variables and Fq-coefficients, then −T Pr dim(W ∩ V(h1,...,hs)) > k − s ≤ Cq , where the constant C = C(T,s,D,δ1,...,δs) > 0 depends only on t,s,D and on the polynomial degrees δ1,...,δs. k−s+1+m Proof. Part (a) is the special case of part (b) with T = m and δ1 = · · · = δs = m. So, it suffices to prove part (b). We may assume that W is irreducible, for otherwise we may apply the result to its irreducible components. The proof is by induction on s. Let U be the set of all irreducible components of W ∩ V(h1,...,hs−1). Since W is irreducible, dim(U) ≥ k − s + 1 for each U ∈U. So, from Lemmas 6 and 7 we see that, for U ∈U, − k−s+1+δs k s+1+Mk−s+1(T ) −( − ) −( − ) −T Pr[hs vanishes on U] ≤ q k s+1 ≤ q k s+1 ≤ q . s−1 Bézout’s inequality tells us that |U| ≤ D i=1 δi, and hence the probability that hs vanishes on s−1 −T some component of W ∩ V (h1,...,hs−1) isQ at most D i=1 δi · q . By the induction hypothesis, −T W ∩V(h1,...,hs−1) is of dimension exceeding k−s+1 withQ probability C(t,s−1,D,δ1,...,δs−1)q , and so the probability that W ∩ V(h1,...,hs−1, hs) is of dimension exceeding k − s is at most s−1 −t −T deg(W )m · q + C(t,s − 1,D,δ1,...,δs−1)q , − −(k s+1+m) which is at most C(T,s,D,δ1,...,δs)q m for suitable C(T,s,D,δ1,...,δs).

Combining these two observations we obtain the following handy result. Lemma 12. Let 0 ≤ s ≤ k ≤ b be integers. Suppose that W ⊆ Pb is a variety of pure dimension k, and − a ′ 1 (k s+1+m) ′ ′ X ⊂ P (Fq) is an s-wise m-independent set of size |X|≤ c q s m where c = c (m,s, deg W ) > 0 is suﬃciently small. Let g ∈ Fq[x0,...,xa]m ⊗ Fq[y0,...,yb]m be a random bihomogeneous polynomial a b 4 of bidegree (m,m) on P ×P . Then the following holds with probability at least 5 : For every s distinct points v1, . . . , vs ∈ X the variety

{w ∈ W : g(v1, w)= · · · = g(vs, w) = 0} is of dimension k − s. s Proof. By Proposition 11(a) and the union bound over all (v1, . . . , vs) ∈ X , the probability that X − s − k s+1+m ′ s does not satisfy this is at most |X| · C(m,s, deg W )q ( m ) ≤ (c ) C(m,s, deg W ). So, choosing c′ small enough works.

6 4 Construction of m-independent varieties

For positive integers b, m, t, let

def b t Φt(b, m) = {(p1,...,pt) ∈ (P ) : p1,...,pt are minimally m-dependent}, def φt(b, m) = dimΦt(b, m).

Note that Φt(b, m) is indeed a variety. This follows from the equivalence of m-dependence of points and linear dependence of the linear m-th powers of respective linear forms, which we discussed above. We shall upper bound the functions φt in the next section. But ﬁrst we show how to use these bounds to construct m-independent varieties. Lemma 13. Suppose that b, m, Z, s ≥ 1 are integers satisfying 1 Z > φ (b, m) for all t = m + 2,m + 3,...,s. (3) t − 1 t

Let f1,...,fZ be generic degree-m homogeneous polynomials in b + 1 variables. Then the variety V(f1,...,fZ ) is s-wise m-independent.

Proof. In view of Lemma 18(a) it suffices to show that V(f1,...,fZ ) contains no set of t minimally m-dependent points for every m + 2 ≤ t ≤ s. b Note that whenever points p1,...,pt ∈ P are minimally m-dependent, their Hilbert function satisfies HI({p1,...,pt})(m) = t − 1. Indeed, HI({p1,...,pt})(m) ≤ t − 1 follows from the definition of m-dependence, and HI({p1,...,pt})(m) ≥ t − 1 follows from minimality. This means that the vector Z space I({p1,...,pt})m is of codimension t−1 in Fq[x0,...,xb]m, and I({p1,...,pt})m is of codimension Z Z(t − 1) in (Fq[x0,...,xb]m) . Since Z(t − 1) > φt(b, m), we can use the algebraic version of the union bound to deduce that for generic degree-m homogeneous polynomials f1,...,fZ , the variety V(f1,...,fZ ) does not contain def Z any minimally m-dependent set {p1,...,pt}. Indeed, write F = Fq[x0,...,xb]m and regard it as a variety with polynomials’ coefficients as indeterminants. Define the variety

def V = {(f1,...,fZ ,p1,...,pt) ∈ F × Φt(b, m) : fi(pj) = 0 for all i, j}. Consider the projection of V onto F . Our claim is that the ﬁber of a generic f~ ∈ F is empty. If it is not so, then dim V ≥ dim F . However, for the projection onto the Φt(b, m) factor, every ﬁber is of codimension Z(t − 1), and so dim V ≤ dimΦt(b, m) + (dim F − Z(t − 1)) < dim F , which is a contradiction, proving our claim.

Lemma 14. Suppose that b, m, Z are integers satisfying the condition (3) and b−Z ≥ 1, and assume that q ≥ q0(b, m, Z) is suﬃciently large in terms of b, m, Z. Then there exist degree-m polynomials f1,...,fZ ∈ Fq[x0,...,xb]m such that the variety V(f1,...,fZ) is s-wise m-independent, is of pure 1 b−Z dimension b − Z, and contains at least 2 q many Fq-points.

Proof. We shall choose each f1,...,fZ uniformly at random from Fq[x0,...,xb]m. Let

def B = {(f1,...,fZ) : V(f1,...,fZ) is not s-wise m-independent} Z ⊆ Fq[x0,...,xb]m.

7 The set B is a variety, for we can think of as the image of the projection of the bigger variety

′ def Z B = {(f1,...,fZ,p1,...,ps) : fi(pj) = 0 for all i, j}⊆ Fq[x0,...,xb]m × Φt(b, m) onto the first factor. Furthermore, recall that Φt(b, m) is defined by the linear dependence of the m-th powers of the linear forms associated to the points pi. Since the number of linear forms and the numbers of variables therein do not depend on q, using Bézout’s inequaltiy we may obtain an upper bound on the degree B′ (and hence on the degree of B) that is independent of q (but depends on b, m and Z). Z By Lemma 13, B is of codimension at least 1 in Fq[x0,...,xb]m. By Lemma 3, a random element Z 1 Fq[x0,...,xb]m is in B with probability O( q deg B). Since deg B is independent of q, this probability is O(1/q).

Similarly, since V(f1,...,fZ) is of codimension Z for generic polynomials f1,...,fZ , it follows that V(f1,...,fZ ) is of smaller codimension with probability O(1/q) for random polynomials f1,...,fZ . Furthermore, since V(f1,...,fZ) is deﬁned by Z polynomials, no component of it can have codimension more than Z (see [21, Corollary 1.14]), and so V(f1,...,fZ) is of pure dimension b − Z. b Let Y = P (Fq). Applying Lemma 4(a) we see that

b 1 b−Z Z−b Pr |V(f1,...,fZ) ∩ P (Fq)|≤ 2 q ≤ 4q . Since b − Z ≥ 1, this is also O(1/q), and so random polynomials satisfy the conclusion of the lemma with probability 1 − O(1/q).

5 Upper bound on φt(b, m)

For the purpose of proving an exponential bound in Theorem 1, we need only a bound of the form φt(b, m) ≤ (1 − ε)bt that is valid for small t. We go a step further: our bound shows that, for 1 moderately large b, the quantity t−1 φt(b, m) appearing in Lemma 13 is largest when t = m + 2. Though our bound on φt(b, m) is likely to be far from being sharp, this means that a stronger bound on φt(b, m) would not lead to a smaller base of exponent in Theorem 1. Lemma 15. Let V be a vector space, v ∈ V and S ⊆ V . Exactly one of the following alternatives holds:

a) there exists a partition S = S1 ∪ . . . ∪ Sd satisfying v∈ / span(S1) ∪···∪ span(Sd),

b) there exists a set T ⊆ S and a natural number D such that |T | > d(D − 1) and the span of every D-element subset of T contains v.

Proof. Let M be the linear matroid on the set S ∪ {v}. Then part (a) is equivalent to the statement that the contracted matroid M/{v} can be partitioned into d independent sets. Our claim is then the special case of the result of Edmonds [10] applied to the matroid M/{v}.

Lemma 16. Let m,t be integers satisfying m ≥ 2 and t ≥ 3. Suppose that the characteristic of Fq is b more than m, and t points p1,...,pt ∈ P are minimally m-dependent. Then p1,...,pt span a linear 2 space of dimension at most m+2 t − 1.

8 This lemma is inspired by a result of Bia lynicki-Birula and Schinzel [3, Theorem 2]. In particular, the polarization idea that we use in our proof is implicit in theirs. Their argument could be adapted to 2 prove a bound of t/2 in place of m+2 t−1, which would suﬃce for an exponential bound in Theorem 1.

def Proof of Lemma 16. Define linear forms ℓi(x) = hpi,xi for i = 1, 2 ...,t. From the discussion following the definition of m-dependence in Section 3 we know that m-dependence of p1,...,pt is equivalent m m to linear dependence between ℓ1(x) ,...,ℓt(x) . m m Since p1,...,pt are minimally m-dependent, no proper subset of ℓ1(x) ,...,ℓt(x) is linearly dependent, and so all the coefficients in this linear relation are non-zero. Since the ℓi’s are defined only up to a scalar, we may rescale them so that

m m ℓ1(x) + · · · + ℓt(x) = 0.

Since m! 6= 0 in Fq, we may polarize this relation: let x1,...,xm be m vectors of indeterminants, make the substitution x = x1 + · · · + xm, and consider only the multilinear terms. We obtain

m m ℓ1(xj)+ · · · + ℓt(xj) = 0. (4) jY=1 jY=1

Note that the minimality assumption implies that the points p1,...,pt are distinct, and hence the the linear forms ℓ1,...,ℓt are pairwise linearly independent. Let r be the dimension of the vector space spanned by the forms ℓ1,...,ℓt. Note that r − 1 is the dimension of the linear space spanned by the points p1,...,pt. Without loss of generality, we may assume that the last r forms ℓt−r+1,ℓt−r+2,...,ℓt are linearly independent. def Denote by L the set of remaining forms, i.e., L = {ℓ1,...,ℓt−r}. Suppose that we can parti- m−1 tion L into m − 1 many sets L1,...,Lm−1 such that j=1 span(Lj) does not contains every one of ℓt−r+1,ℓt−r+2,...,ℓt. Pick a generic bj ∈ Lj, for each Sj, and substitute bj for xj in (4) to obtain

ct−r+1ℓt−r+1(xm)+ · · · + ctℓt(xm) = 0,

m−1 m−1 where ci = j=1 ℓi(bj). Since the bj’s are generic, ci 6= 0 whenever ℓi ∈/ j=1 span(Lj). In particular, notQ all coeﬃcients ct−r+1,...,ct are zero. Because the forms ℓt−r+1 throughS ℓt are linearly independent, this is a contradiction, and so no partition of L into L1,...,Lm−1 as above exists.

Hence, according to Lemma 15, for every j = t − r + 1,...,t there is a subset Tj ⊆ L and an integer Dj ≥ 1 such that |Tj| > (m − 1)(Dj − 1) and the span of every Dj-element subset of Tj contains ℓj. Note that the last condition implies that

′ ′ ′ Tj ⊂ span T for every T ⊂ Tj of size |T |≥ Dj. (5)

In particular, dim span Tj ≤ Dj. Since ℓj is pairwise linearly independent with the elements of Tj, it follows that Dj ≥ 2. Let def Wj = span Tj. i[≤j

9 If Tj * Wj−1, then from (5) it follows that

|Tj \ Wj−1|≥ (m − 2)(Dj − 1) + dim(Wj) − dim(Wj−1).

Because dim(Wj) − dim(Wj−1) ≤ dim span Tj ≤ Dj, this implies that

(m − 2)(Dj − 1) |Tj \ Wj−1|≥ dim(Wj) − dim(Wj−1) · 1+ Dj (6) m ≥ dim(W ) − dim(W ) · . j j−1 2 Note that this inequality holds also if Tj ⊆ Wj−1, as in that case the right side vanishes. The summation of (6) over all j telescopes, and we obtain

t m rm |L|≥ |T \ W |≥ dim(W ) − dim(W ) · = . j j−1 t 0 2 2 j=Xt−r+1 Since |L| = t − r, this completes the proof.

Deﬁne

′ def b Φt(b, m) = {(p1,...,pt) ∈ Φt(b, m) : points p1,...,pt span P }, ′ def ′ φt(b, m) = dimΦt(b, m).

′ Lemma 17. Suppose that m ≥ 3 is non-zero in Fq. Then φt(b, m) ≤ (t − b − 1)(b + 1).

Proof. For notational brevity, let L denote the set of all linear forms in b + 1 variables. Let

def t U = {(ℓ1,...,ℓt) ∈L : span{ℓ1,...,ℓt} = L}, def m m Wt = {(ℓ1,...,ℓt) ∈ U : ℓ1(x) + · · · + ℓt(x) = 0}.

′ From the proof of the preceding lemma we know that dim Φt(b, m) ≤ dim Wt. We shall upper bound dim Wt by bounding the dimension of the tangent space at every point of Wt. Let (ℓ1,...,ℓt) ∈ Wt. Since ℓ1,...,ℓt span L, by renumbering the forms, we may assume that the forms ℓ1,...,ℓb+1 span L. Furthermore, by applying a linear change of coordinates, we may also t assume that ℓi(x)= xi−1 for each i = 1, 2, . . . , b + 1. Then (∆1,..., ∆t) ∈L is in the tangent space to Wt at point (ℓ1,...,ℓt) ∈ Wt if and only if

b+1 t m−1 m−1 ∆i(x)xi−1 + ∆i(x)ℓi(x) = 0. Xi=1 i=Xb+2

m−1 m−1 Since m ≥ 3, the monomials appearing in ∆1(x)x0 ,..., ∆b+1(x)xb are distinct. This implies 2 that the tangent space to W1 at (ℓ1,...,ℓt) is of codimension at least (b + 1) . Therefore,

′ 2 φt(b, m) ≤ dim Wt ≤ t(b + 1) − (b + 1) = (t − b − 1)(b + 1).

10 Lemma 18. Suppose that t, b, m ≥ 3 are integers, and suppose that the characteristic of Fq exceeds m. Then

a) Φt(b, m)= ∅ if t ≤ m + 1, and

2 m−2 b) φt(b, m) ≤ ⌊ m+2 t⌋(b + m+2 t) if m + 2 ≤ t ≤ b. Proof. From Lagrange interpolation it follows that no set of m + 1 or fewer points is m-dependent. Hence Φt(b, m)= ∅ if t ≤ m + 1. ′ 2 b b Let r = ⌊ m+2 t − 1⌋. Let Gr(r, P ) be the Grassmanian of linear subspaces of dimension r in P . We then have

′ b φt(b, m) ≤ max φt(r, m) + dim Gr(r, P ) by Lemma 16 r≤r′ ≤ max (t − r − 1)(r + 1) + (r + 1)(b − r) by Lemma 17 r≤r′ = max(t + b − 2r − 1)(r + 1). r≤r′

Without the restriction on r, the maximum of the quadratic (t + b − 2r − 1)(r + 1) is achieved when t+b−3 t+b−3 ′ r = 4 . Since b ≥ t, the value 4 is larger than r , and so

′ ′ 4 2 φt(b, m) ≤ (t + b − 2r − 1)(r + 1) ≤ (t + b − m+2 t)⌊ m+2 t⌋.

6 Construction for the Tur´an problem

Lemma 19. Let r, s, Z ≥ 1 be integers. Let ℓ be a prime. Set b = r + s + Z. Suppose that m+1+r 2 b, m, Z, r satisfy the inequalities m ≥ s , m ≥ 3 as well as the condition (3) for every field of characteristic ℓ. Then, for every sufficiently large n there is a graph with Θ(n) vertices and Ω(n2−1/s) s+Z r 2 edges that is Ks,t-free for t>m i=1 Mi(s ). Q Proof. Let q be the power of ℓ satisfying n ≤ qs <ℓsn. def 2 Let f1,...,fZ be polynomials as in Lemma 14. Let δi = Mr−i+1(s ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , r. Let ′ ′ b h1,...,hr and h1,...,hr be two independent collections of random homogeneous polynomials on P ′ with Fq-coefficients of degrees deg hi = deg hi = δi. Let g be a random bihomogeneous Fq-polynomial on Pb × Pb of bidegree (m,m). Define

def b L0 = V(f1,...,fZ , h1,...,hr) ∩ P (Fq), def ′ ′ b R0 = V(f1,...,fZ , h1,...,hr) ∩ P (Fq).

′ ′ Let c = c (s + Z,s, deg W ) be the constant from Lemma 12 applied with W = V(f1,...,fZ ), and let 2 s+Z def 1 ′ −1/s C = C(s ,s,m , δ1,...,δr) be the constant from Proposition 11(b). Put c = min 4 , c , (5C) . s Let L be a set of size min(cq , |L0|) chosen canonically from L0 (for example, it could be the initial b segment of L0 in some fixed ordering of P ). Let R be a similarly defined subset of R0 of size s min(cq , |R0|). Define the bipartite graph G with parts L and R by connecting (l, r) ∈ L×R whenever g(l, r) = 0.

11 s 2s−1 Graph G has Θ(q ) vertices and Ω(q ) edges. By Lemma 4(a), both L0 and R0 have at 1 s s 1 least 4 q elements with probability 1 − O(1/q ). Since c ≤ 4 , this means that

Pr |L| = |R| = cqs ≥ 1 − O(q−s). (7) Since the polynomial g is independent of L0 and R0, it follows, by Lemma 4(b) applied with Y = L × R to the single random polynomial g, that the edge set E(G) = (L × R) ∩ V(g) is of size at least |L||R|/2q with probability at least 1 − O(q−2s+1). In view of (7), it then follows that

1 2 2s−1 −s Pr[E(G) ≥ 2 c q ] ≥ 1 − O(q ). (8)

Graph G is Ks,t-free. Because of the symmetry between the two parts of G, it suﬃces to show that G is very unlikely to contain Ks,t with the part of size s embedded into L. Since L ⊂ V(f1,...,fZ ) def and V(f1,...,fZ) is m-independent, the set L is m-independent. Let W = V(f1,...,fZ ). Since m+1+r 2 4 m ≥ s , Lemma 12 applies, telling us that with probability 5 every variety of the form def Wl1,...,ls = {w ∈ W : g(l1, w)= · · · = g(ls, w) = 0},

for distinct l1,...,ls, is of dimension dim W −s = r. Let W be the set of all varieties of the form Wl1,...,ls for distinct l1,...,ls ∈ L. The set W is random: it depends on the random choice of polynomials h1,...,hr (because L depends on these polynomials), and it depends on the polynomial g. Crucially, ′ ′ W does not depend on polynomials h1,...,hr. ′ ′ So, we may apply Proposition 11(b) to each variety in W and polynomials h1,...,hr. Note that s s+Z deg(Wl1,...,ls ) ≤ deg(W )m ≤ m by B´ezout’s inequality. Therefore, combined with the union bound, the proposition tells us that

′ ′ Pr[∃ distinct l1,...,ls ∈ L s.t. dim Wl1,...,ls ∩ V(h1,...,hr) > 0] s s s 2 s+Z −s2 ≤ Pr[dim(Wl1,...,ls ) > r for some l1,...,ls]+Pr |L|= 6 cq + (cq ) · C(s ,s,m )q 1 −s s 2 s+Z ≤ 5 + O(q )+ c C(s ,s,m ).

−1/s 2 −s Because the constant c satisﬁes c ≤ (5C) , this probability is at most 5 + O(q ). Note that the ′ ′ variety Wl1,...,ls ∩ V(h1,...,hr) contains all common neighbors of the vertices l1,...,ls in the graph s r G. By B´ezout’s inequality, the degree of this variety is at most deg(W )m i=1 δi

By symmetry, we may derive the same bound with roles of L and R reversed, and so

4 −s Pr[G contains Ks,t] ≤ 5 + O(q ). (9)

Putting (7), (8) and (9) together, it follows that graph G has Θ(qs) = Θ(n) vertices, at least 2s−1 2−1/s 1 −s Ω(q ) = Ω(n ) edges, and contains no Ks,t with probability at least 5 − O(q ) > 0. In particular, such a graph G exists.

r 1+log r Lemma 20. For every r ≥ 1 and every T , we have k=1 Mk(T ) ≤ T r!. Q 12 m+k m+1 k 1/k Proof. Since m ≥ k , the function Mk satisfies Mk(T ) ≤ ⌊kT ⌋. The lemma then follows 1 1 from the inequality 1 + 2 +· · · + r ≤ 1 + log r. Proof of Theorem 1. We may assume that s ≥ 100, for otherwise the theorem follows from the result of Kollár, Rónyai and Szabó[18] that we mentioned in the introduction. Let m def= 3, r def= ⌊(6s2)1/3⌋, and Z def= s + r + 2. For this choice, the constant Z satisfies

1 2 2 5(t − 1)Z − 2t(s + r + Z + 5 t) = (t − 5)(s + r) + (6t − 10) − 5 t .

2 2 2 2 Since 6t − 10 > 5 t for t = 5, 6, 7, 8 and (t − 5)(s + r) ≥ (t − 5)t> 5 t for t ≥ 9, it follows that 2t Z > (s + r + Z + 1 t) for all t = m + 2,m + 3,...,s. 5(t − 1) 5

1 Let ℓ = 5. From Lemma 18(b) it then follows that Z > t−1 φt(b, m) for all t = m + 2,m + 3,...,s, whenever the characteristic of Fq is ℓ. m+1+r r+4 3 2 We have m = 3 ≥ (r + 1) /6 ≥ s , and so the result follows from Lemmas 19 and 20, the estimation 2 r!(s2)1+log r ≤ 2s1/2(r/e)r · (s2)1+log r ≤ s 3 r+2+2 log r ≤ sr for s ≥ 23,

2/3 and the inequality 3r+2sr ≤ s3r/2 ≤ s4s that is valid for s ≥ 100.

7 Construction for the Zarankiewicz problem

This is similar, but simpler than the construction for the Tur´an problem from the preceding section because we do not need Lemmas 14 and 18.

r+1+m Lemma 21. Let r, s, T ≥ 1 be integers satisfying T ≤ m . Then, for every sufficiently large n 2 2 there is a sided graph with Θ(nT/s ) vertices on the left, Θ( n) vertices on the right, and Ω(nT/s +1−1/s) s r edges that contains no sided Ks,t for t>m i=1 Mi(T ). Q Proof. Unlike in the construction of Turán graphs, we do not need to worry about field characteristic. So, let q be the power of 2 satisfying n ≤ qs < 2sn. Let b def= r + s. def ′ ′ Set δi = Mr−i+1(T ) for i = 1, . . . , r. Let c = c (m,s, 1) be the constant from Lemma 12, and let s def ′ −1/s C = C T,s,m , δ1,...,δr be the constant from Proposition 11(b). Put c = min(c , (5C) ). Pick a T/s a ≥ 1 and an s-wise m-independent set L in P (Fq) of size cq arbitrarily. For example, we may choose a = cqT/s and let L consist of linearly independent points. We next pick several random polynomials with coefficients in Fq: Let g be a random bihomoge- a b ′ ′ neous polynomial on P × P of bidegree (m,m), and let h1,...,hr be random independent homoge- b ′ neous polynomials on P of degrees deg hi = δi. Let

def ′ ′ b R = V(h1,...,hr) ∩ P (Fq).

Deﬁne the sided graph G with the left part L and the right part R by connecting (l, r) ∈ L × R whenever g(l, r) = 0.

13 b 4 Invoking Lemma 12 with W = P we see that, with probability 5 , every variety of the form

def b Wl1,...,ls = {w ∈ P : g(l1, w)= · · · = g(ls, w) = 0},

s for distinct l1,...,ls ∈ L, has dimension b − s = r. By B´ezout’s inequality, deg Wl1,...,ls ≤ m , and so the union bound and Proposition 11(b) together imply that

2 −s Pr[G contains sided Ks,t] ≤ 5 + O(q ), (10) where we used that c ≤ (5C)−1/s, similarly to the corresponding step in the proof of Lemma 19. b ′ ′ −s Also, from Proposition 11(b) applied to W = P we learn that Pr[dim V(h1,...,hr) >s]= O(q ). In view of Lemma 3, this implies that

s −s Pr |R| = Os(q ) ≥ 1 − O(q ). (11) Finally, by applying Lemmas 4(a) and 4(b), it follows that

1 T/s+s−1 1 s 1 T/s 1 s−1 1 s Pr |E(G)|≥ 4 cq ≥ Pr |R|≥ 2 q Pr |E(G)|≥ 2 cq · 2 q |R|≥ 2 q −s −s+1 −T/s ≥ 1 − O(q ) 1 − O(q q ) = 1 − O(q−s+1). (12)

T/s s From (10), (11), (12) we see that there exists a sided graph with cq vertices on the left, Os(q ) 1 T/s+s−1 vertices on the right, and at least 4 cq edges.

def 2 def 2 Proof of Theorem 2( a). Let T = s logn m, and r = ⌊s/ log s⌋. Note that these constants satisfy r+1+k 2 k 2 r ≥ (s/ log s) /k! ≥ s logn m. We then use Lemma 21 with k in place of m, and appeal to Lemma 20 to bound r s 2 1+log r (1+log r)k r (1+log s) 3 2 s/ log s 2s/ log s Mi(r) ≤ T r! ≤ s r ≤ s 2 log s (s/ log s) ≤ e Yi=1 to obtain the stated result.

Proof of Theorem 2( b). Let k ≥ 1 be an integer to be chosen shortly. Let r def= ⌈s/ log s⌉, and def r+1+k ′′ ′′′ T = k Note that there are constants cs and cs such that ′′ r 2 ′′′ r cs k ≤ T/s ≤ cs k ,

′′ r and choose k to be the smallest integer so that cs k ≥ logn m. Applying Lemma 21 with k in place of m, we obtain a sided graph whose left part is of size 2 ′′ r Ω(nT/s ) = Ω(ncs k ) = Ω(m) and the right part is of size Θ(n), matching the Kövári, Sós, Turán s r bound for Ks,t-free graphs for t > k i=1 Mi(r). Since r Q s s r 1+log r s+r+r log r r+2r log s 1+2 log s k Mi(r) ≤ k r T = Os(k )= Os(k )= Os(logn m) . Yi=1

′′ r Choosing the smallest k so that cs k ≥ logn m completes the proof.

14 References

[1] Noga Alon, Keith E. Mellinger, Dhruv Mubayi, and Jacques Verstra¨ete. The de Bruijn–Erd˝os theorem for hypergraphs. Des. Codes Cryptogr., 65(3):233–245, 2012. arXiv:1007.4150.

[2] Noga Alon, Lajos R´onyai, and Tibor Szab´o. Norm-graphs: variations and applications. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 76(2):280–290, 1999.

[3] A. Bia lynicki-Birula and A. Schinzel. Representations of multivariate polynomials by sums of univariate polynomials in linear forms. Colloq. Math., 112(2):201–233, 2008.

[4] Pavle V. M. Blagojevi´c, Boris Bukh, and Roman Karasev. Tur´an numbers for Ks,t-free graphs: topological obstructions and algebraic constructions. Israel J. Math., 197(1):199–214, 2013. arXiv:1207.0705.

[5] Boris Bukh and David Conlon. Rational exponents in extremal graph theory. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 20(7):1747–1757, 2018. arXiv:1506.06406.

[6] Boris Bukh and Michael Tait. Tur´an numbers of theta graphs. Combin. Probab. Comput., 29(4):495–507, 2020. arXiv:1804.10014.

[7] David Conlon. Some remarks on the Zarankiewicz problem. arXiv:2007.12816.

[8] David Conlon. Graphs with few paths of prescribed length between any two vertices. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 51(6):1015–1021, 2019.

[9] Alain Couvreur. An upper bound on the number of rational points of arbitrary projective varieties over ﬁnite ﬁelds. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 144(9):3671–3685, 2016. arXiv:1409.7544.

[10] Jack Edmonds. Minimum partition of a matroid into independent subsets. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards Sect. B, 69B:67–72, 1965. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/69B/ jresv69Bn1-2p67_A1b.pdf.

[11] P. Erd˝os. Some recent progress on extremal problems in graph theory. In Proceedings of the Sixth Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing (Florida Atlantic Univ., Boca Raton, Fla., 1975), pages 3–14. Congressus Numerantium, No. XIV, 1975.

[12] P. Erd¨os and A. H. Stone. On the structure of linear graphs. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 52:1087– 1091, 1946.

[13] William Fulton. Intersection theory, volume 2 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzge- biete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1998.

[14] Zoltán Füredi. Turán type problems. In Surveys in combinatorics, 1991 (Guildford, 1991), volume 166 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., pages 253–300. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991.

15 [15] Zolt´an F¨uredi. An upper bound on Zarankiewicz’ problem. Combin. Probab. Comput., 5(1):29– 33, 1996.

[16] Zoltán Füredi and Miklós Simonovits. The history of degenerate (bipartite) extremal graph problems. In Erdös centennial, volume 25 of Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., pages 169–264. János Bolyai Math. Soc., Budapest, 2013. arXiv:1306.5167.

[17] Zhiyang He and Michael Tait. Hypergraphs with few Berge paths of ﬁxed length between vertices. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 33(3):1472–1481, 2019.

[18] János Kollár, Lajos Rónyai, and Tibor Szabó. Norm-graphs and bipartite Turán numbers. Combinatorica, 16(3):399–406, 1996.

[19] T. Kövari, V. T. Sós, and P. Turán. On a problem of K. Zarankiewicz. Colloq. Math., 3:50–57, 1954.

[20] Jie Ma, Xiaofan Yuan, and Mingwei Zhang. Some extremal results on complete degenerate hypergraphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 154:598–609, 2018.

[21] Igor R. Shafarevich. Basic algebraic geometry. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1994. Varieties in projective space, Translated from the 1988 Russian edition and with notes by Miles Reid.

[22] Mart´ın Sombra. Bounds for the Hilbert function of polynomial ideals and for the degrees in the Nullstellensatz. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 117/118:565–599, 1997. arXiv:alg-geom/9610006.

[23] Miguel N. Walsh. The polynomial method over varieties. Invent. Math., 222(2):469–512, 2020. arXiv:1811.07865.

[24] Zixiang Xu, Tao Zhang, and Gennian Ge. Some tight lower bounds for Tur´an problems via constructions of multi-hypergraphs. European J. Combin., 89:103161, 11, 2020. arXiv:1907.11909.

[25] Kazimierz Zarankiewicz. Problem 101. Colloq. Math., 2:301, 1951.