# Chapter 10 exercises

1. Let $\boldsymbol{X}$ be a random variable and let $1 \leq r \leq \infty$. Recall that the triangle (Minkowski) inequality implies that for real-valued functions $f_1, f_2$, $\|f_1(\boldsymbol{X}) + f_2(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r \leq \|f_1(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r + \|f_2(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r.$ More generally, if $w_1, \dots, w_m$ are nonnegative reals and $f_1, \dots, f_m$ are real functions then $\|w_1 f_1(\boldsymbol{X}) + \cdots + w_m f_m(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r \leq w_1 \|f_1(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r + \cdots + w_m \|f_m(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r.$ Still more generally, if $\boldsymbol{Y}$ is a random variable independent of $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $f(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})$ is a (measurable) real-valued function then it holds that $\bigl\| \mathop{\bf E}_{\boldsymbol{Y}}[f(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})] \bigr\|_{r, \boldsymbol{X}} \leq \mathop{\bf E}_{\boldsymbol{Y}}[\|f(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})\|_{r,\boldsymbol{X}}].$ Using this last fact, show that whenever $0 < p \leq q \leq \infty$, $\left\|\ \| f(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})\|_{p,\boldsymbol{Y}}\ \right\|_{q, \boldsymbol{X}} \leq \left\|\ \| f(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})\|_{q,\boldsymbol{X}}\ \right\|_{p, \boldsymbol{Y}}.$ (Hint: raise the inequality to the power of $p$ and use $r = q/p$.)
2. The goal of this exercise is to prove Proposition 9.15: if $\boldsymbol{X}$ and $\boldsymbol{Y}$ are independent $(p,q,\rho)$-hypercontractive random variables then so is $\boldsymbol{X}+\boldsymbol{Y}$. Let $a, b \in {\mathbb R}$.

1. First obtain $\|a+\rho b(\boldsymbol{X}+\boldsymbol{Y})\|_{q, \boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}} \leq \left\|\ \|a+\rho b \boldsymbol{X} + b\boldsymbol{Y}\|_{p, \boldsymbol{Y}}\ \right\|_{q,\boldsymbol{X}}.$
2. Next, upper-bound this by $\left\|\ \|a+b\boldsymbol{Y} + \rho b \boldsymbol{X}\|_{q, \boldsymbol{X}}\ \right\|_{p,\boldsymbol{Y}}.$ (Hint: Exercise 1.)
3. Finally, upper-bound this by $\left\|\ \|a+b\boldsymbol{Y} + b \boldsymbol{X}\|_{p, \boldsymbol{X}}\ \right\|_{p,\boldsymbol{Y}} = \|a+b(\boldsymbol{X}+\boldsymbol{Y})\|_{p,\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}}.$
3. Let $\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n$ be independent $(p,q,\rho)$-hypercontractive random variables. Let $F(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq [n]} \widehat{F}(S)x^S$ be an $n$-variate multilinear polynomial. Define formally the multilinear polynomial $\mathrm{T}_\rho F(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq [n]} \rho^{|S|}\widehat{F}(S)x^S$. The goal of this exercise is to show $$\label{eqn:poly-hc-hc} \|\mathrm{T}_\rho F(\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n)\|_q \leq \|F(\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n)\|_p.$$ Note that this result yields an alternative deduction of the Hypercontractivity Theorem for $\pm 1$ bits from the Two-Point Inequality. A (notationally intense) generalization of this exercise can also be used as an alternative inductive strategy for deducing the General Hypercontractivity Theorem from Proposition 16 or Theorem 17.
1. Why is Exercise 2 a special case of \eqref{eqn:poly-hc-hc}?
2. Begin the inductive proof of \eqref{eqn:poly-hc-hc} by showing that the base case $n = 0$ is trivial.
3. For the case of general $n$, first establish $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho F(\boldsymbol{X})\|_q \leq \left\| \ \|\mathrm{T}'_\rho E(\boldsymbol{X}') + \boldsymbol{X}_n \mathrm{T}'_\rho D(\boldsymbol{X}') \|_{p, \boldsymbol{X}_n} \ \right\|_{q, \boldsymbol{X}'},$ where we are using the notation $x’ = (x_1, \dots, x_{n-1})$, $F(x) = E(x’) + x_n D(x’)$, and $\mathrm{T}_\rho’$ for the operator acting formally on $(n-1)$-variate multilinear polynomials.
4. Complete the inductive step, using steps similar to Exercises 2(b),(c). (Hint: for $X_n$ a real constant, why is $\mathrm{T}’_\rho E(\boldsymbol{X}’) + X_n \mathrm{T}’_\rho D(\boldsymbol{X}’) = \mathrm{T}’_\rho (E + X_n D)(\boldsymbol{X}’)$?)
4. This exercise is concerned with the possibility of a converse for Proposition 8.
1. In our proof of the Two-Point Inequality we used Proposition 9.19 to deduce that a uniform bit ${\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \{-1,1\}$ is $(p,q,\rho)$-hypercontractivity if it’s $(q’,p’,\rho)$-hypercontractive. Why can’t we use Proposition 9.19 to deduce this for a general random variable $\boldsymbol{X}$?
2. For each $1 < p < 2$, exhibit a random variable $\boldsymbol{X}$ which is $(p, 2, \rho)$-hypercontractive (for some $\rho$) but not $(2,p’,\rho)$-hypercontractive.
1. Regarding Remark 2, heuristically justify (in the manner of Exercise 9.24) the following statement: If $A, B \subseteq \{-1,1\}^n$ are concentric Hamming balls with volumes $\exp(-\frac{a^2}{2})$ and $\exp(-\frac{b^2}{2})$ and $\rho a \leq b \leq a$ (where $0 < \rho < 1$) then $\mathop{\bf Pr}_{\substack{({\boldsymbol{x}}, \boldsymbol{y}) \\ \text{ \rho-correlated}}}[{\boldsymbol{x}} \in A, \boldsymbol{y} \in B] \gtrapprox \exp\left(-\tfrac12 \tfrac{a^2 – 2\rho ab + b^2}{1-\rho^2}\right);$ and further, if $b < \rho a$ then $\mathop{\bf Pr}[{\boldsymbol{x}} \in A, \boldsymbol{y} \in B] \sim \mathop{\bf Pr}[{\boldsymbol{x}} \in A]$. Here you should treat $\rho$ as fixed and $a, b \to \infty$.
2. Similarly, heuristically justify that the Reverse Small-Set Expansion Theorem is essentially sharp by considering diametrically opposed Hamming balls.
5. The goal of this exercise (and Exercise 7) is to prove the Reverse Hypercontractivity Theorem and its equivalent Two-Function version:

Reverse Hypercontractivity Theorem Let $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}^{\geq 0}$ be a nonnegative function and let $-\infty \leq q < p \leq 1$. Then $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_q \geq \|f\|_p$ for $0 \leq \rho \leq \sqrt{(1-p)/(1-q)}$.

Reverse Two-Function Hypercontractivity Theorem Let $f, g : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}^{\geq 0}$ be nonnegative, let $r, s \leq 0$, and assume $0 \leq \rho \leq \sqrt{rs} \leq 1$. Then $\mathop{\bf E}_{{\substack{({\boldsymbol{x}}, \boldsymbol{y}) \\ \text{ \rho-correlated}}}}[f({\boldsymbol{x}}) g(\boldsymbol{y})] \geq \|f\|_{1+r} \|g\|_{1+s}.$

Recall that for $-\infty < p < 0$ and for positive functions $f \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$ the “norm” $\|f\|_p$ retains the definition $\mathop{\bf E}[f^p]^{-1/p}$. (The cases of $p = -\infty$, $p = 0$, and nonnegative functions are defined by appropriate limits; in particular $\|f\|_{-\infty}$ is the minimum of $f$’s values, $\|f\|_0$ is the geometric mean of $f$’s values, and $\|f\|_p$ is $0$ whenever $f$ is not everywhere positive. We also define $p’$ by $\frac1p + \frac1{p’} = 1$, with $0′ = 0$.)

The Reverse Two-Function Hypercontractivity Theorem can be thought of as a generalization of the lesser known “reverse Hölder inequality” in the setting of $L^2(\{-1,1\}^n, \pi_{1/2}^{\otimes n})$:

Reverse Hölder inequality Let $f \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$ be a positive function. Then for any $p < 1$, $\|f\|_p = \inf\ \{ \mathop{\bf E}[fg] : g > 0, \|g\|_{p’} = 1\}.$ In particular, for $r < 0$ and $f, g > 0$ we have $\mathop{\bf E}[fg] \geq \|f\|_{1+r}\|g\|_{1+1/r}$.

1. Show that to prove these two Reverse Hypercontractivity Theorems it suffices to consider the case of $f, g : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}^+$; i.e., strictly positive functions.
2. Show that the Reverse Two-Function Hypercontractivity Theorem is equivalent (via the reverse Hölder inequality) to the Reverse Hypercontractivity Theorem.
3. Reduce the Reverse Two-Function Hypercontractivity Theorem to the $n = 1$ case. (Hint: virtually identical to the Two-Function Hypercontractivity Induction.) Further reduce to following:

Reverse Two-Point Inequality Let $-\infty \leq q < p \leq 1$ and let $0 \leq \rho \leq \sqrt{(1-p)/(1-q)}$. Then $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_q \geq \|f\|_p$ for any $f : \{-1,1\} \to {\mathbb R}^+$.

6. The goal of this exercise is to prove the Reverse Two-Point Inequality.
1. Similar to the non-reverse case, the main effort is proving the inequality assuming that $0 < q < p \leq 1$ and that $\rho = \sqrt{(1-p)/(1-q)}$. Do this by mimicking the proof of the Two-Point Inequality. (Hint: you will need the inequality $(1+t)^\theta \geq 1 + \theta t$ for $\theta \geq 1$ and you will need to show that $\tfrac{j-r}{\sqrt{1-r}}$ is an increasing function of $r$ on $[0,1)$ for all $j \geq 2$.)
2. Extend to the case of $0 \leq \rho \leq \sqrt{(1-p)/(1-q)}$. (Hint: use the fact that for any $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}^{\geq 0}$ and $-\infty \leq p \leq q \leq \infty$ we have $\|f\|_p \leq \|f\|_q$. You can prove this generalization of Exercise 1.14 by reducing to the case of negative $p$ and $q$ to the case of positive $p$ and $q$.)
3. Establish the case $q = -\infty$ case of the Reverse Two-Point Inequality.
4. Show that the cases $-\infty < q < p < 0$ follow by duality''. (Hint: like Proposition 9.19 but with the reverse Hölder inequality.)
5. Show that the cases $q < 0 < p$ follow by the semigroup property of $\mathrm{T}_\rho$.
6. Finally, treat the cases of $p = 0$ or $q = 0$.
7. Give a simple proof of the $n = 1$ case of the Reverse Two-Function Hypercontractivity Theorem when $r = s = -1/2$. (Hint: replace $f$ and $g$ by $f^2$ and $g^2$; then you don't even need to assume $f$ and $g$ are nonnegative.) Can you also give a simple proof when $r = s = -1 + 1/k$ for integers $k > 2$?
8. By selecting $\text{}r\text{''} = -\rho \frac{\rho a + b}{a+\rho b}$ and $\text{}s\text{''} = -\rho \frac{a +\rho b}{\rho a+ b}$, prove the Reverse Small-Set Expansion Theorem mentioned in Remark 3. (Hint: the negative norm of a $0$-$1$-indicator is $0$, so be sure to verify no negative norms arise.)
9. Let $g \in L^2(\Omega^n, \pi^{\otimes n})$. Writing $x = (x_1, x')$, where $x' = (x_2, \dots, x_n)$, carefully justify the following identity of one-input functions: $(\mathrm{T}^1_{\rho} g)_{ \mid x'} = \mathrm{T}_\rho (g_{ \mid x'})$.
10. Prove Proposition 11.
11. Let $\boldsymbol{X}$ be a random variable and let $\boldsymbol{Y}$ denote its symmetrization $\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{X}'$, where $\boldsymbol{X}'$ is an independent copy of $\boldsymbol{X}$. Show for any $t, \theta \in {\mathbb R}$ that $\mathop{\bf Pr}[|\boldsymbol{Y}| \geq t] \leq 2\mathop{\bf Pr}[|\boldsymbol{X} - \theta| \geq t/2]$.
12. The goal of this exercise is to establish Lemma 41.

1. Show that we may take $c_2 = 1$ (and that equality holds). Henceforth assume $q > 2$.
2. By following the idea of our $q = 4$ proof, reduce to showing that there exists $0 < c_q < 1$ such that $|1 - c_qx|^q + c_qqx \leq |1+x|^q - qx \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb R}.$
3. Further reduce to showing there exists $0 < c_q < 1$ such that $$\label{eqn:unsymm-ex1} \frac{|1 – c_qx|^q + c_qqx – 1}{x^2} \leq \frac{|1+x|^q – qx – 1}{x^2} \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb R}.$$ Here you should also establish that both sides are continuous functions of $x \in {\mathbb R}$ once the value at $x = 0$ is defined appropriately.
4. Show that there exists $M > 0$ such that for every $0 < c_q < \tfrac{1}{2}$, inequality \eqref{eqn:unsymm-ex1} holds once $|x| \geq M$. (Hint: consider the limit of both sides as $|x| \to \infty$.)
5. Argue that it suffices to show that $$\label{eqn:unsymm-ex2} \frac{|1+x|^q – qx -1}{x^2} \geq \eta$$ for some universal positive constant $\eta > 0$. (Hint: a uniform continuity argument for $(x,c_q) \in [-M,M] \times [0,\tfrac{1}{2}]$.)
6. Establish \eqref{eqn:unsymm-ex2}. (Hint: the best possible $\eta$ is $1$ but to just achieve some positive $\eta$, argue using Bernoulli’s inequality that $\frac{|1+x|^q – qx -1}{x^2}$ is everywhere positive and then observe that it tends to $\infty$ as $|x| \to \infty$.)
7. Possibly using a different argument, what is the best asymptotic bound you can achieve for $c_q$? Is $c_q \geq \Omega(\frac{\log q}{q})$ possible?
13. In the proof of Lemma 41, show that the largest $c$ for which inequality (11) holds is the smaller real root of $c^4-2c^3-2c+1 = 0$, namely $c \approx .435$.
1. Show that $1 + 6c^2 x^2 + c^4 x^4 \leq 1 + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4$ holds for all $x \in {\mathbb R}$ when $c = 1/2$. (Can you also establish it for $c \approx .5269$?)
2. Show that if $\boldsymbol{X}$ is a random variable satisfying $\mathop{\bf E}[\boldsymbol{X}] = 0$ and $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_4 < \infty$ then $\|a + \tfrac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{r} \boldsymbol{X}\|_4 \leq \|a + \boldsymbol{X}\|_4$ for all $a \in {\mathbb R}$, where $\boldsymbol{r} \sim \{-1,1\}$ is a uniformly random bit independent of $\boldsymbol{X}$. (Cf. Lemma 14.)
3. Establish the following improvement of Theorem 42 in the case of $q = 4$: for all $f \in L^2(\Omega^n, \pi^{\otimes n})$, $\|\mathrm{T}_{\frac12 \boldsymbol{r}} f({\boldsymbol{x}})\|_{4,\boldsymbol{r},{\boldsymbol{x}}} \leq \|f({\boldsymbol{x}})\|_{4, {\boldsymbol{x}}}$ (where ${\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi^{\otimes n}$, $\boldsymbol{r} \sim \{-1,1\}^n$).
14. Complete the proof of Theorem 37. (Hint: you’ll need to rework Exercise 9.8 as in Lemma 36.)
15. Prove Proposition 16.
16. Recall from Theorem 17 the function $\rho = \rho(\lambda)$ defined for $\lambda \in (0,1/2)$ (and fixed $q > 2$) by $\rho = \rho(\lambda) = \sqrt{\frac{\exp(u/q) - \exp(-u/q)}{\exp(u/q')- \exp(-u/q')}} = \sqrt{\frac{\sinh(u/q)}{\sinh(u/q')}},$ where $u = u(\lambda)$ is defined by $\exp(-u) = \tfrac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}$.

1. Show that $\rho$ is an increasing function of $\lambda$. (Hint: one route is to reduce to showing that $\rho^2$ is a decreasing function of $u \in (0,\infty)$, reduce to showing that $q\tanh(u/q)$ is an increasing function of $q \in (1, \infty)$, reduce to showing $\frac{\tanh r}{r}$ is a decreasing function of $r \in (0,\infty)$, and reduce to showing $\sinh(2r) \geq 2r$.)
2. Verify the following statements from Remark 18: \begin{align*} \text{for fixed $q$ and $\lambda \to 1/2$,} \quad &\rho \to \frac{1}{\sqrt{q-1}}; \\ \text{for fixed $q$ and $\lambda \to 0$,} \quad &\rho \sim \lambda^{1/2 – 1/q}. \end{align*} Also show: $\text{for fixed \lambda and q \to \infty,} \quad \rho \sim \sqrt{\frac{u}{\sinh u}} \sqrt{\frac{1}{q}},$ and $\sqrt{\frac{u}{\sinh u}} \sim 2\lambda\ln(1/\lambda)$ for $\lambda \to 0$.
3. Show that $\rho \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{q-1}} \lambda^{1/2-1/q}$ holds for all $\lambda$.
17. Let $(\Omega, \pi)$ be a finite probability space, $|\Omega| \geq 2$, in which every outcome has probability at least $\lambda$. Let $1 < p < 2$ and $0 < \rho < 1$. The goal of this exercise is to prove the result of Wolff [Wol07] that, subject to $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_2 = 1$, every $f \in L^2(\Omega,\pi)$ which minimizes $\|f\|_p$ takes on at most two values (and there is at least one minimizing $f$).
1. We consider the equivalent problem of minimizing $F(f) = \|f\|_p^p$ subject to $G(f) = \|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_2^2 = 1$. Show that both $F(f)$ and $G(f)$ are $\mathcal{C}^1$ functionals (identifying functions $f$ with points in ${\mathbb R}^\Omega$).
2. Argue from continuity that the minimum value for $\|f\|_p^p$ subject to $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_2^2 = 1$ is attained. Henceforth write $f_0$ to denote any minimizer; the goal is to show that $f_0$ takes on at most two values.
3. Show that $f_0$ is either everywhere nonnegative or everywhere nonpositive. (Hint: by homogeneity our problem is equivalent to maximizing $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_2$ subject to $\|f\|_p = 1$; now use Exercise 2.29.) Replacing $f_0$ by $|f_0|$ if necessary, henceforth assume $f_0$ is nonnegative.
4. Show that $\nabla F(f_0) = \pi \cdot p f_0^{p-1}$ and $\nabla G(f_0) = \pi \cdot 2 \mathrm{T}_{\rho^2} f_0$. Here $\pi \cdot g$ signifies the pointwise product of functions on $\Omega$, with $\pi$ thought of as a function $\Omega \to {\mathbb R}^{\geq 0}$. (Hint: for the latter, write $G(f) = \langle \mathrm{T}_{\rho^2} f, f \rangle$.)
5. Use the method of Lagrange Multipliers to show that $c f_0^{p-1} = T_{\rho^2} f_0$ for some $c \in {\mathbb R}^+$. (Hint: you’ll need to note that $\nabla G(f_0) \neq 0$.)
6. Writing $\mu = \mathop{\bf E}[f_0]$, argue that each value $y = f(\omega)$ satisfies the equation $$\label{eqn:wolff-equation} c y^{p-1} = \rho^2 y + (1-\rho^2) \mu.$$
7. Show that \eqref{eqn:wolff-equation} has at most two solutions for $y \in {\mathbb R}^+$, thereby completing the proof that $f_0$ takes on at most two values. (Hint: strict concavity of $y^{p-1}$.)
8. Suppose $q > 2$. By slightly modifying the above argument, show that subject to $\|g\|_2 = 1$, every $g \in L^2(\Omega,\pi)$ which maximizes $\|\mathrm{T}_{\rho} g\|_q$ takes on at most two values (and there is at least one maximizing $g$). (Hint: at some point you might want to make the substitution $g = \mathrm{T}_\rho f$; note that $g$ is two-valued if $f$ is.)
18. Fix $1 < p < 2$ and $0 < \lambda < 1/2$. Let $\Omega = \{-1,1\}$ and $\pi = \pi_\lambda$, meaning $\pi(-1) = \lambda$, $\pi(1) = 1-\lambda$. The goal of this exercise is to show the result of Latała and Oleszkiewicz [LO94]: the largest value of $\rho$ for which $\|\mathrm{T}_\rho f\|_2 \leq \|f\|_p$ holds for all $f \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$ is as given in Theorem 17; i.e., it satisfies $$\label{eqn:LO-bound2} \rho^2 = r^* = \frac{\exp(u/p’) – \exp(-u/p’)}{\exp(u/p)- \exp(-u/p)},$$ where $u$ is defined by $\exp(-u) = \tfrac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}$. (Here we are using $p = q’$ to facilitate the proof; we get the $(2,q)$-hypercontractivity statement by Proposition 9.19.)
1. Let’s introduce the notation $\alpha = \lambda^{1/p}$, $\beta = (1-\lambda)^{1/p}$. Show that $r^* = \frac{\alpha^p\beta^{2-p} - \alpha^{2-p}\beta^p}{\alpha^2-\beta^2}.$
2. Let $f \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$. Write $\mu = \mathop{\bf E}[f]$ and $\delta = \mathrm{D}_1 f = \hat{f}(1)$. Our goal will be to show $$\label{eqn:lo-goal} \mu^2 + \delta^2 r^* = \|T_{\sqrt{r^*}} f\|_2^2 \leq \|f\|_p^2.$$ In the course of doing this, we’ll also exhibit a nonconstant function $f$ which makes the above inequality sharp. Why does this establish that no larger value of $\rho$ is possible?
3. Show that without loss of generality we may assume $f(-1) = \frac{1+y}{\alpha}, \quad f(1) = \frac{1-y}{\beta}$ for some $-1 < y < 1$. (Hint: first use Exercise 2.29 and a continuity argument to show that we may assume $f > 0$; then use homogeneity of \eqref{eqn:lo-goal}.)
4. The left-hand side of \eqref{eqn:lo-goal} is now a quadratic function of $y$. Show that our $r^*$ is precisely such that $\text{LHS}\eqref{eqn:lo-goal} = Ay^2 + C$ for some constants $A, C$. I.e., $r^*$ makes the linear term in $y$ drop out. (Hint: work exclusively with the $\alpha, \beta$ notation and recall from Definition 8.44 that $\delta^2 = \lambda(1-\lambda)(f(1)-f(-1))^2 = \alpha^p \beta^p(f(1)-f(-1))^2$.)
5. Compute that $$\label{eqn:loA} A = 2\frac{\beta^{p-1}-\alpha^{p-1}}{\beta-\alpha}.$$ (Hint: you’ll want to multiply the above expression by $\alpha^p + \beta^p = 1$.)
6. Show that $\text{RHS}\eqref{eqn:lo-goal} = ((1+y)^p + (1-y)^p)^{2/p}.$ Why does it now suffice to show \eqref{eqn:lo-goal} just for $0 \leq y < 1$?
7. Let $y^* = \frac{\beta-\alpha}{\beta+\alpha} > 0$. Show that if $y = -y^*$ then $f$ is a constant function and both sides of \eqref{eqn:lo-goal} are equal to $\frac{4}{(\alpha+\beta)^2}$.
8. Deduce that both sides of \eqref{eqn:lo-goal} are equal to $\frac{4}{(\alpha+\beta)^2}$ for $y = y^*$. Verify that after scaling, this yields the following nonconstant function for which \eqref{eqn:lo-goal} is sharp: $f(x) = \exp(-xu/p)$.
9. Write $y = \sqrt{z}$ for $0 \leq z < 1$. By now we have reduced to showing $Az+C \leq ((1+\sqrt{z})^p + (1-\sqrt{z})^p)^{2/p},$ knowing that both sides are equal when $\sqrt{z} = y^*$. Calling the expression on the right $\phi(z)$, show that $\frac{d}{dz} \phi(z)\Bigr|_{\sqrt{z}=y^*} = A.$ (Hint: you’ll need $\alpha^p+\beta^p = 1$, as well as the fact from part (h) that $\phi(z) = \frac{4}{(\alpha+\beta)^2}$ when $\sqrt{z}=y^*$.) Deduce that we can complete the proof by showing that $\phi(z)$ is convex for $z \in [0,1)$.
10. Show that $\phi$ is indeed convex on $[0,1)$ by showing that its derivative is a nondecreasing function of $z$. (Hint: use the Generalized Binomial Theorem as well as $1 < p < 2$ to show that $(1+\sqrt{z})^p + (1-\sqrt{z})^p$ is expressible as $\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_j z^j$ where each $b_j$ is positive.)
19. Complete the proof of Theorem 17. (Hint: besides Exercises 19 and 20, you'll also need Exercise 18(a).)
1. Let $\Phi : [0, \infty) \to {\mathbb R}$ be defined by $\Phi(x) = x \ln x$, where we take $0\ln0 = 0$. Verify that $\Phi$ is a smooth, strictly convex function.
2. Consider the following:

Definition 47 Let $g \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$ be a nonnegative function. The entropy of $g$ is defined by $\mathbf{Ent}[g] = \mathop{\bf E}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi}[\Phi(g({\boldsymbol{x}}))] – \Phi\Bigl(\mathop{\bf E}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi}[g({\boldsymbol{x}})]\Bigr).$

Verify that $\mathbf{Ent}[g] \geq 0$ always, that $\mathbf{Ent}[g] = 0$ if and only if $g$ is constant, and that $\mathbf{Ent}[c g] = c\mathbf{Ent}[g]$ for any constant $c \geq 0$.

3. Suppose $\varphi$ is a probability density on $\{-1,1\}^n$ (recall Definition 1.20). Show that $\mathbf{Ent}[\varphi] = D_{\mathrm{KL}}(\varphi || \pi_{1/2}^{\otimes n})$, the Kullback–Leibler divergence of the uniform distribution from $\varphi$ (more precisely, the distribution with density $\varphi$).
20. The goal of this exercise is to establish:

The Log-Sobolev Inequality Let $f: \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}$. Then ${\tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{Ent}[f^2] \leq \mathbf{I}[f]}$.

1. Writing $\rho = \exp(-t)$, the $(p,2)$-Hypercontractivity Theorem tells us that $\|\mathrm{T}_{\exp(-t)} f\|_2^2 \leq \|f\|^2_{1+\exp(-2t)}$ for all $t \geq 0$. Denote the left- and right-hand sides as $\textrm{LHS}(t)$, $\textrm{RHS}(t)$. Verify that these are smooth functions of $t \in [0,\infty)$ and that $\textrm{LHS}(0) = \textrm{RHS}(0)$. Deduce that $\textrm{LHS}'(0) \leq \textrm{RHS}'(0)$.
2. Compute $\textrm{LHS}'(0) = -2 \mathbf{I}[f]$. (Hint: pass through the Fourier representation.)
3. Compute $\textrm{RHS}’(0) = -\mathbf{Ent}[f^2]$, thereby deducing the Log-Sobolev Inequality. (Hint: as an intermediate step, define $F(t) = \mathop{\bf E}[|f|^{1+\exp(-2t)}]$ and show that $\textrm{RHS}’(0) = F(0)\ln F(0) + F’(0)$.)
1. Let $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}$. Show that $\mathbf{Ent}[(1+\epsilon f)^2] \sim 2 \mathop{\bf Var}[f] \epsilon^2$ as $\epsilon \to 0$.
2. Deduce the Poincaré Inequality for $f$ from the Log-Sobolev Inequality.
1. Deduce from the Log-Sobolev Inequality that for $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to \{-1,1\}$ with $\alpha = \min\{\mathop{\bf Pr}[f = 1], \mathop{\bf Pr}[f=-1]\}$, $$\label{eqn:weak-edge-iso} 2 \alpha \ln(1/\alpha) \leq \mathbf{I}[f].$$ This is off by a factor of $\ln 2$ from the optimal edge-isoperimetric inequality Theorem 2.38. (Hint: apply the inequality to either $\tfrac{1}{2} – \tfrac{1}{2} f$ or $\tfrac{1}{2} + \tfrac{1}{2} f$.)
2. Give a more streamlined direct derivation of \eqref{eqn:weak-edge-iso} by differentiating the Small-Set Expansion Theorem.
21. This exercise gives a direct proof of the Log-Sobolev Inequality.
1. The first step is to establish the $n = 1$ case. Towards this, show that we may assume $f : \{-1,1\} \to {\mathbb R}$ is nonnegative and has mean $1$. (Hint: Exercise 22(b).)
2. Thus it remains to establish $\tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{Ent}[(1+b{\boldsymbol{x}})^2] \leq b^2$ for $b \in [-1,1]$. Show that $g(b) = b^2 – \tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{Ent}[(1+b{\boldsymbol{x}})^2]$ is smooth on $[-1,1]$ and satisfies $g(0) = 0$, $g’(0) = 0$, and $g”(b) = \frac{2b^2}{1+b^2} + \ln\frac{1+b^2}{1-b^2} \geq 0$ for $b \in (-1,1)$. Explain why this completes the proof of the $n = 1$ case of the Log-Sobolev Inequality.
3. Show that for any two functions $f_+, f_- : \{-1,1\}^n \to {\mathbb R}$, $\left(\tfrac{\sqrt{\mathop{\bf E}[f_+^2]} – \sqrt{\mathop{\bf E}[f_-^2]}}{2}\right)^2 \leq \mathop{\bf E}\left[\Bigl(\tfrac{f_+ - f_-}{2}\Bigr)^2\right].$ (Hint: the triangle inequality for $\| \cdot \|_2$.)
4. Prove the Log-Sobolev Inequality via “induction by restrictions” (as described in Section 9.4). (Hint: for the right-hand side, establish $\mathbf{Inf}[f] = \mathop{\bf E}[(\tfrac{f_+ - f_-}{2})^2] + \tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{I}[f_+] + \tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{I}[f_-]$. For the left-hand side, apply induction, then the $n = 1$ base case, then part (c).)
1. By following the strategy of Exercise 23, establish the following:

Log-Sobolev Inequality for general product space domains Let $f \in L^2(\Omega^n, \pi^{\otimes n})$ and write $\lambda = \min(\pi)$, $\lambda’ = 1-\lambda$, $\exp(-u) = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda’}$. Then $\tfrac{1}{2} \varrho \mathbf{Ent}[f^2] \leq \mathbf{I}[f]$, where $\varrho = \varrho(\lambda) = \frac{\tanh(u/2)}{u/2} = 2 \frac{\lambda' - \lambda}{\ln \lambda' - \ln \lambda}.$

2. Show that $\varrho(\lambda) \sim 2/\ln(1/\lambda))$ as $\lambda \to 0$.
3. Let $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to \{-1,1\}$ and treat $\{-1,1\}^n$ as having the $p$-biased distribution $\pi_p^{\otimes n}$. Write $q = 1-p$. Show that if $\alpha = \min\{\mathop{\bf Pr}_{\pi_p}[f = 1], \mathop{\bf Pr}_{\pi_p}[f = -1]\}$ then $4\frac{q - p}{\ln q - \ln p} \alpha \ln(1/\alpha) \leq \mathbf{I}[f^{(p)}]$ and hence, for $p \to 0$, $$\label{eqn:weak-p-biased-isoperim} \alpha \log_p \alpha \leq (1+o_p(1))p \cdot \mathop{\bf E}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi_p^{\otimes n}}[\mathrm{sens}_f({\boldsymbol{x}})].$$ We remark that \eqref{eqn:weak-p-biased-isoperim} is known to hold without the $o_p(1)$ for all $p \leq 1/2$.
22. Prove Theorem 20. (Hint: recall Proposition 8.28.)
23. Let $\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n$ be independent $(2,q,\rho)$-hypercontractive random variables and let $F(x) = \sum_{|S| \leq k} \widehat{F}(S)\,x^S$ be an $n$-variate multilinear polynomial of degree at most $k$. Show that $\|F(\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n)\|_q \leq (1/\rho)^k \|F(\boldsymbol{X}_1, \dots, \boldsymbol{X}_n)\|_2.$ (Hint: you’ll need Exercise 3.)
24. Let $0 < \lambda \leq 1/2$ and let $(\Omega, \pi)$ be a finite probability space in which some outcome $\omega_0 \in \Omega$ has $\pi(\omega_0) = \lambda$. (For example, $\Omega = \{-1,1\}$, $\pi = \pi_\lambda$.) Define $f \in L^2(\Omega, \pi)$ by setting $f(\omega_0) = 1$, $f(\omega) = 0$ for $\omega \neq \omega_0$. For $q \geq 2$, compute $\|f\|_q/\|f\|_2$ and deduce (in light of the proof of Theorem 20) that Corollary 19 cannot hold for $\rho > \lambda^{1/2 – 1/q}$.
25. Prove Theorem 21.
26. Prove Theorem 22.
27. Prove Theorem 23. (Hint: immediately worsen $q-1$ to $q$ so that finding the optimal choice of $q$ is easier.)
28. Prove Theorem 24.
29. Prove Friedgut’s Junta Theorem for general product spaces as stated in Section 3.
30. Show that in the proof of Theorem 28, inequality (4) implies $F(p_c + \eta p_c) \geq 1-\epsilon$. (Hint: consider $\frac{d}{dp} \ln(1-F(p))$.)
31. Justify the various calculations and observations in Examples 43.
1. Let $p = \frac1n$ and let $f \in L^2(\{-1,1\}^n, \pi_p^{\otimes n})$ be any boolean-valued function. Show that $\mathbf{I}[f] \leq 4$. (Hint: Proposition 8.45.)
2. Let us specialize to the case $f = \chi_{[n]}$. Show that $f$ is not $.1$-close to any width-$O(1)$ DNF (under the $\frac1n$-biased distribution, for $n$ sufficiently large). This shows that the assumption of monotonicity can’t be removed from Friedgut’s Conjecture. (Hint: show that fixing any constant number of coordinates cannot change the bias of $\chi_{[n]}$ very much.)
32. A function $h : \Omega^n \to \Sigma$ is said to expressed as a pseudo-junta if the following hold: There are “juntas” $f_1, \dots, f_m : \Omega^n \to \{\mathsf{True}, \mathsf{False}\}$ with domains $J_1, \dots, J_m \subseteq [n]$ respectively. Further, $g : (\Omega \cup \{\ast\})^n \to \Sigma$, where $\ast$ is a new symbol not in $\Omega$. Finally, for each input $x \in \Omega^n$ we have $h(x) = g(y)$, where for $j \in [n]$, $y_j = \begin{cases} x_j & \text{if j \in J_i for some i with f_i(x) = \mathsf{True},} \\ \ast & \text{else}. \end{cases}$ An alternative explanation is that on input $x$, the junta $f_i$ decides whether the coordinates in its domain are “notable”; then, $h(x)$ must be determined based only on the set of all notable coordinates. Finally, if $\pi$ is a distribution on $\Omega$ we say that the pseudo-junta has width-$k$ under $\pi^{\otimes n}$ if $\mathop{\bf E}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi^{\otimes n}}[\#\{j : \boldsymbol{y}_j \neq \ast\}] \leq k;$ in other words, the expected number of notable coordinates is at most $k$. For $h \in L^2(\Omega^n, \pi^{\otimes n})$ we simply say that $h$ is a $k$-pseudo-junta. Show that if such a $k$-pseudo-junta $h$ is $\{-1,1\}$-valued then $\mathbf{I}[f] \leq 4k$. (Hint: referring to the second statement in Proposition 8.24, consider the notable coordinates for both ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{x}}’ = ({\boldsymbol{x}}_i, \dots, {\boldsymbol{x}}_{i-1}, {\boldsymbol{x}}’_i, {\boldsymbol{x}}_{i+1}, \dots, {\boldsymbol{x}}_n)$.)
33. Establish the following further consequence of Bourgain’s Sharp Threshold Theorem: Let $f : \{\mathsf{True}, \mathsf{False}\}^n \to \{\mathsf{True}, \mathsf{False}\}$ be a monotone function with $\mathbf{I}[f^{(p)}] \leq K$. Assume $\mathop{\bf Var}[f] \geq .01$ and $0 < p \leq \exp(-cK^2)$, where $c$ is a large universal constant. Then there exists $T \subseteq [n]$ with $|T| \leq O(K)$ such that $\mathop{\bf Pr}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi_p^{\otimes n}}[f({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \mathsf{True} \mid {\boldsymbol{x}}_i = \mathsf{True} \text{ for all i \in T}] \geq \mathop{\bf Pr}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi_p^{\otimes n}}[f({\boldsymbol{x}})= \mathsf{True}] + \exp(-O(K^2)).$ (Hint: Bourgain’s Sharp Threshold Theorem yields a booster either towards $\mathsf{True}$ or towards $\mathsf{False}$. In the former case you’re easily done; to rule out the latter case, use the fact that $p|T| \ll \exp(-O(K^2))$.)
34. Suppose that in Bourgain’s Sharp Threshold Theorem we drop the assumption that $\mathop{\bf Var}[f] \geq .01$. (Assume at least that $f$ is nonconstant.) Show that there is some $\tau$ with $|\tau| \geq \mathop{\bf stddev}[f] \cdot \exp(-O(\mathbf{I}[f]^2/\mathop{\bf Var}[f]^2))$ such that $\mathop{\bf Pr}_{{\boldsymbol{x}} \sim \pi^{\otimes n}}[\exists T \subseteq [n], |T| \leq O(\mathbf{I}[f]/\mathop{\bf Var}[f]) \text{ such that {\boldsymbol{x}}_T is a } \tau\text{-booster}] \geq |\tau|.$ (Cf. Exercise 9.32.)
35. In this exercise we give the beginnings of the idea of how Bourgain’s Sharp Threshold Theorem can be used to show sharp thresholds for interesting monotone properties. We will consider $\neg\text{3Col}$, the property of a random $v$-vertex graph $\boldsymbol{G} \sim \mathcal{G}(v,p)$ being non-$3$-colourable.

1. Prove that the critical property $p_c$ satisfies $p_c \leq O(1/v)$. I.e., establish that there is a universal constant $C$ such that $\mathop{\bf Pr}[\boldsymbol{G} \sim \mathcal{G}(v, C/v) \text{ is } 3\text{-colourable}] = o_n(1)$. (Hint: union-bound over all potential $3$-colourings.)
2. Towards showing (non-)$3$-colourability has a sharp threshold, suppose the property had constant total influence at the critical probability. Bourgain’s Sharp Threshold Theorem would imply that there is a $\tau$ of constant magnitude such that for $\boldsymbol{G} \sim \mathcal{G}(v,p_c)$, there is a $|\tau|$ chance that $\boldsymbol{G}$ contains a $\tau$-boosting induced subgraph $\boldsymbol{G}_T$. There are two cases, depending on the sign of $\tau$. It’s easy to rule out that the boost is in favour of $3$-colourability; the absence of a few edges shouldn’t increase the probability of $3$-colourability by much (cf. Exercise 41). On the other hand, it might seem plausible that the presence of a certain constant number of edges should boost the probability of non-$3$-colourability by a lot. For example, the presence of a $4$-clique immediately boosts the probability to $1$. However, the point is that at the critical probability it is very unlikely that $\boldsymbol{G}$ contains a $4$-clique (or indeed, any “local” witness to non-$3$-colourability). Short of showing this, prove at least that the expected number of $4$-cliques in $\boldsymbol{G} \sim \mathcal{G}(v,p)$ is $o_v(1)$ unless $p = \Omega(v^{-2/3}) \gg p_c$.

### 13 comments to Chapter 10 exercises

• Noam Lifshitz

In Ex 1. should all the norms in the next line be r?
$$\|w_1 f_1(\boldsymbol{X}) + \cdots + w_m f_m(\boldsymbol{X})\|_r \leq w_1 \|f_1(\boldsymbol{X})\|_1 + \cdots + w_m \|f_m(\boldsymbol{X})\|_m.$$

It also seems to me that the assumption that $w_1+w_2+\cdots+w_m$ is redundant.

• You’re right on both counts. Thanks again (and again!) Noam!

• Noam Lifshitz

(I meant the assumption that $w_1+w_2+\cdots+w_m=1$)

• Noam Lifshitz

Minor typo in the Reverse Hölder inequality:
It should be- $$\|f\|_p = \inf\ \{ \mathop{\bf E}[fg] : g > 0, \|g\|_{p’} = 1\}.$$

• Sharp eyes! Thanks.

• Noam Lifshitz

I think in ex. 10, it should be- $$(\mathrm{T}^1_{\rho} g)_{ \mid x’} = \mathrm{T}_\rho (g_{ \mid x’})$$

• Yep, thanks!

• Noam Lifshitz

I think in 13 c it should be:$$$$\label{eqn:unsymm-ex1} \frac{|1 – c_qx|^q + c_qqx-1}{x^2} \leq \frac{|1+x|^q – qx-1}{x^2} \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb R}.$$$$
to obtain continuity.

• Noam Lifshitz

$$\frac{|1 – c_qx|^q + c_qqx-1}{x^2} \leq \frac{|1+x|^q – qx-1}{x^2} \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb R}.$$

• Absolutely right, thanks.

• Noam Lifshitz

$$$$\frac{|1 – c_qx|^q + c_qqx}{x^2} \leq \frac{|1+x|^q – qx}{x^2} \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb R}.$$$$

• Noam Lifshitz

I think that in exercise 23, it should be $(p,2)$ Hypercontractivity.

• Yep, thanks.