forked from patmorin/turan
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
turan.tex
1224 lines (1046 loc) · 52.7 KB
/
turan.tex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
\documentclass{patmorin}
\listfiles
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsthm,amsmath,graphicx}
\usepackage{pat}
\usepackage[letterpaper]{hyperref}
\usepackage[table,dvipsnames]{xcolor}
%\usepackage[dvipsnames]{color}
\definecolor{linkblue}{named}{Blue}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, linkcolor=linkblue, anchorcolor=linkblue,
citecolor=linkblue, filecolor=linkblue, menucolor=linkblue,
urlcolor=linkblue}
\setlength{\parskip}{1ex}
\DeclareMathOperator{\sign}{sign}
\DeclareMathOperator{\xmax}{xmax}
\DeclareMathOperator{\xmin}{xmin}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ymax}{ymax}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ymin}{ymin}
\DeclareMathOperator{\x}{x}
\DeclareMathOperator{\y}{y}
\DeclareMathOperator{\survivors}{\overline\kappa}
\DeclareMathOperator{\killed}{\kappa}
\usepackage{array}
% To reduce space in lists
\usepackage{enumitem}
\setlist{noitemsep}
%\usepackage[skip=0pt]{caption}
\title{\MakeUppercase{More Turán-Type Theorems for Triangles in Convex Point Sets}\thanks{This research is partially funded by NSERC.}}
\author{%
Boris Aronov,
Vida Dujmović,
Ruy Fabila,
Pat Morin,
Aurélien Ooms\thanks{Supported by the Fund for Research Training in Industry and Agriculture (FRIA).
Département d'Informatique, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Belgium.
\texttt{aureooms@ulb.ac.be}
},\\
and Luís Fernando Schultz Xavier da Silveira%
}
\newcommand{\taco}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-edge-1}}}
\newcommand{\mariposa}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-edge-2}}}
\newcommand{\bat}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-vertex-1}}}
\newcommand{\nested}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-vertex-2}}}
\newcommand{\crossing}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-vertex-3}}}
\newcommand{\ears}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-disjoint-1}}}
\newcommand{\swords}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-disjoint-2}}}
\newcommand{\david}{\raisebox{-.1ex}{\includegraphics[height=1.6ex]{figs/triangles-disjoint-3}}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\ex}{ex}
\DeclareMathOperator{\on}{\overline{ex}}
%\usepackage{lineno}
%\linenumbers
\pagenumbering{roman}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We study the following family of problems: Given a set of $n$ points
in convex position, what is the maximum number triangles one can
create having these points as vertices while avoiding certain sets
of \emph{forbidden configurations}. As forbidden configurations
we consider all 8 ways in which a pair of triangles in such a point
set can interact. This leads to 256 extremal Turán-type questions.
We give nearly tight (within a $\log n$ factor) bounds for 248 of these
questions and show that the remaining 8 questions are all asymptotically
equivalent to Stein's longstanding tripod packing problem.
\end{abstract}
\end{titlepage}
\tableofcontents
\newpage
\section{Introduction}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
Let $t_1$ and $t_2$ be a pair of distinct triangles whose (4 to 6)
vertices are in convex position. There are 8 combinatorially distinct
ways that these triangles can interact: 2 ways in which the triangles
can share an edge (\taco\ and \mariposa), 3 ways in which the triangles
can share a single vertex (\bat, \nested, and \crossing), and 3 ways
in which the triangles can have no vertices in common (\ears, \swords,
and \david). Because it is difficult to keep track of nameless entities,
we assign a mnemonic to each configuration (though the reader is encouraged
to choose their own):
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline
\taco & \mariposa & \bat & \nested & \crossing & \ears & \swords & \david \\
taco & mariposa & bat & nested & crossing & ears & swords & david \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We consider the following class of problems: Given a set, $X$,
of combinatorial configurations of pairs of triangles, what is the
size of a largest set, $S$, of triangles one can create whose vertices are $n$
points in convex position, and such that no pair of triangles in $S$
forms a configuration in $X$. We call the size of such a set $\ex(n,X)$.
For example,
\begin{equation}
\ex(n,\{\taco,\nested,\crossing,\swords,\david\}) = n-2 \enspace .
\end{equation}
This is because the set $X=\{\taco,\nested,\crossing,\swords,\david\}$
forbids any form of crossings between the edges of triangles. Thus, the
maximum number of triangles we can have while avoiding $X$ is the number
of triangles in a triangulation of a convex $n$-gon, i.e., $n-2$.
\subsection{Previous Work}
Since there are eight possible forbidden configurations, there are
$2^8=256$ sets $X$ for which we can study $\ex(n,X)$. Some of these sets
have been previously studied. Bra\ss, Rote, and Swanepoel used bounds for
the set $X=\{\ears,\swords,\bat,\nested\}$ to solve an Erd\H{o}s problem
on the maximum number of maximum area/perimeter triangles determined
by a point set. Bra\ss\ \cite{brass:turan} later began a systematic
study in which he gave asymptotically tight bounds on $\ex(n,X)$ for all
singleton $X$ and all pairs $X$ of configurations in which two triangles share
a single vertex.
%These previous results are listed in \tabref{previous}.
%\begin{table}
%\centering{
%\begin{tabular}{m{.55\textwidth}m{.4\textwidth}}
%\hline
%\textbf{Result} & \textbf{Ref.} \\ \hline\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\mariposa\})\in \Theta(n^3)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\taco\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ & \cite{brass:turan} \\
%\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\bat\})\in \Theta(n^3)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\nested\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\crossing\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ & \cite{brass:turan} \\
%\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\ears\})\in \Theta(n^3)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\swords\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\david\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ & \cite{brass:turan} \\
%\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\bat,\nested\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\nested,\crossing\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\bat,\crossing\})\in \Theta(n^2)$ & \cite{brass:turan} \\
%\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\ears,\swords,\bat,\nested\}) = n$ \newline
%$\on(n,\{\taco,\mariposa,\david,\crossing\}) = n$
%& \cite{brass.rote.ea:triangles} \\
%\hline
%$\ex(n,\{\bat,\nested,\crossing\}) \in \Theta(n)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\taco,\mariposa\}) \in \Theta(n^2)$ \newline
%$\ex(n,\{\ears,\swords,\david\}) \in \Theta(n^2)$ & from hypergraphs \\ \hline
%\end{tabular}
%}
%\caption{Known results on $\ex(n,X)$ for different sets $X$.}
%\tablabel{previous}
%\end{table}
Of course, upper and lower bounds are inherited through the subset
relationship: $\ex(n,X) \le \ex(n,Y)$ for any $X\supseteq Y$.
\tabref{smalltable} shows the complete set of results we obtain when we
apply this exhaustively to the list of previous results. Each entry in
this table presents the asymptotic behaviour of $\ex(n,X)$ for the set
$X$ obtained as the union of the row and column label. Asymptotically
tight bounds are colored blue, and gaps between lower and upper bounds
are coloured red. Previous results imply 35 tight bounds for 256 of the
possible choices of $X$. The configuration $\mariposa$ is ommitted from
the table since a simple argument (\lemref{xcup}) shows that its inclusion
in $X$ does not change $\ex(n,X)$ by more than a constant factor.
\begin{table}
\centering{
\input{oldbounds.tex}
}
\caption{Old bounds for $\ex(n,X)$.}
\tablabel{smalltable}
\end{table}
%One
%of the results in this paper is that nearly the same bound holds even
%if we allow the $\swords$ and $\david$ configuration. In particular,
%our \thmref{blech} shows that $\ex(n,\{\taco,\nested,\crossing\}) \in
%O(n\log n)$.
%
%Sometimes it is more natural to describe the allowable configurations than the forbidden configurations. For this, we use the notation
%\[
% \on(n,X) = \ex(n,\{\taco,\mariposa,\bat,\nested,\crossing,
% \ears,\swords,\david\} \setminus X) \enspace .
%\]
%
%\begin{tabular}{llll}\hline
% $\ex(n,\taco,\bat)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2)$} & \thmref{taco-bat} \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\nested)$ & $\Omega(n^{1.549})$ & $O(n^2)$ & [various] \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\nested,\david)$ & $\Omega(n)$ & $O(n\log n)$ & \thmref{taco-nested-david} \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\crossing)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\ears)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2)$} & \thmref{taco-ears} \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\david)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2)$} & \thmref{taco-david} \\
% $\ex(n,\taco,\swords)$ & $\Omega(n)$ & $O(n\log n)$ & \thmref{taco-swords} \\
% $\ex(n,\bat,\nested)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \cite{brass:turan} \\
% $\ex(n,\bat,\crossing)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \cite{brass:turan} \\
% $\ex(n,\bat,\ears)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\bat,\swords)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \thmref{bat-swords} \\
% $\ex(n,\bat,\david)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\nested,\crossing)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \cite{brass:turan} \\
% $\ex(n,\nested,\ears)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\nested,\swords)$ & $\Omega(n)$ & $O(n\log n)$ & \thmref{nested-swords} \\
% $\ex(n,\nested,\david)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\crossing,\ears)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\crossing,\swords)$ & $\Omega(n)$ & $O(n\log n)$ & \thmref{crossing-swords} \\$\ex(n,\crossing,\david)$ & & & \\
% $\ex(n,\ears,\swords)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \thmref{swords-ears-david} \\
% $\ex(n,\ears,\david)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \thmref{swords-ears-david} \\
% $\ex(n,\swords,\david)$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Theta(n^2$)} & \thmref{swords-ears-david} \\
%\\ \hline
%\end{tabular}
%
\subsection{New Results}
In the current paper, we determine, up to a logarithmic factor, the
asymptotics of $\ex(n,X)$ for 248 sets $X$. These results are shown in
\tabref{bigtable}. For the remaining 8 sets, we have determined that
the asymptotics are all the same and are equivalent to a problem that
appears in various contexts and under different names, including monotone
matrices, tripod packing, and 2-comparable triples. We discuss this
problem and its rich history in \secref{tripods}.
\begin{table}
\centering{
\input{bounds.tex}
}
\caption{New and previous bounds for $\ex(n,X)$, up to a factor of $\log n$.
For the new bounds listed as $n$, the lower bound is $\Omega(n)$ and the upper bound is $O(n\log n)$. For the bounds listed as $n^{1.546}:n^2$, the upper bound is actually $n^2/e^{\Omega(\log^* n)}$.}
\tablabel{bigtable}
\end{table}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
\secref{points-of-view} we discuss different ways of thinking about
the problem and give some easy results. In particular, we present a
series of puzzles whose solutions determine the asymptotic growth of
$\ex(n,X)$. We then use these puzzles to derive new upper and lower bounds
in \secref{new-results}.
\section{Points of View and Easy Results}
\seclabel{points-of-view}
In this section we present an easy result that cuts our work in half
by reducing the number of problems from 256 to 128. We then describe
different variants of the problem, some of which are easier to work with.
\subsection{Mariposas are Irrelevant}
The following lemma shows that including the $\mariposa$ configuration in
the set $X$ of forbidden configurations has no effect on the asymptotics
of $\ex(n,X)$.
\begin{lem}\lemlabel{xcup}
For any $X$, $\ex(n,X\cup\{\mariposa\}) \ge \ex(n,X)/8$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a set of triangles that achieves $\ex(n,X)$. For each pair
of vertices $u$ and $w$ independently and uniformly choose a direction
$\overrightarrow{uw}$ or $\overleftarrow{uw}$. We then obtain a set
$S'\subseteq S$ by removing any triangle that has a directed edge for
which the triangle is to the left of the edge. Observe that the set
$S'$ does not contain a $\mariposa$ configuration.
For any particular triangle $t\in S$, the probability that $t\in S'$
is exactly $1/8$ since each of $t$'s three edges must be directed
clockwise and edge directions are chosen independently. By linearity of
expectation, $\E[|S'|]=|S|/8=\ex(n,X)/8$. We conclude therefore that
there exists some subset $S''\subseteq S$ of size least $\ex(n,X)/8$
that does not contain a $\mariposa$ configuration. The set $S''$ proves
that $\ex(n,X\cup\{\mariposa\}) \ge \ex(n,X)/8$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Cubic-Sized Sets of Pairwise Crossing Triangles}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{pairwise-crossing}
$\ex(n,\{\ears,\bat,\mariposa\})\in\Omega(n^3)$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Partition the points of the convex $n$-gon into three contiguous
sets, $A$, $B$, and $C$, each of size $\lfloor n/3\rfloor$ or
$\lceil n/3\rceil$, as appropriate. Consider the set, $S$, of all
triangles having one vertex in each of $A$, $B$, and $C$. It is easy
to check that any two triangles in $S$ have a pair of edges that
cross, thus they do not form any of \ears, \bat, or \mariposa.
Furthermore, $|S|\ge \lfloor n/3\rfloor^3\in\Omega(n^3)$, so
$\ex(n,\{\ears,\bat,\mariposa\})\in\Omega(n^3)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Linear-Sized Sets Using only a Single Configuration}
Since it is not explicitly stated in previous work, and we need it to complete our table, we now observe that for any configuration $x\in\{\taco,\bat,\nested,\crossing,\ears,\swords,\david\}$, one can create a linear-sized set of triangles that avoids all configurations except $x$.
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{linear-lower}
For any $X\subset\{\taco,\bat,\nested,\crossing,\ears,\swords,\david\}$,
$\ex(n,X)\in \Omega(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in\{\taco,\bat,\nested,\crossing,\ears,\swords,\david\}$ be
a configuration not in $X$. Label the vertices of our convex $n$-gon
$1,\ldots,n$ in counterclockwise order. Depending on the value of $x$,
we use one of the following constructions (see \figref{linear-lower}):
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-1} &
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-2} &
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-3} \\
\taco & \bat & \nested \\[1em]
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-4} &
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-5} &
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-6} \\
\crossing & \ears & \swords \\[1em]
&
\includegraphics{figs/linear-lower-7} \\
& \david
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The proof of \thmref{linear-lower}.}
\figlabel{linear-lower}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $x=\taco$ we use the set of triangles $\{(1,2,i):i\in\{3,\ldots,n\}\}$.
\item For $x=\bat$ we use the set of triangles $\{(1,2i,2i+1): i\in\{1,\ldots,\lfloor n/2\rfloor-1 \}\}$.
\item For $x=\nested$ we use the set of triangles $\{(1,i,n+2-i): i\in\{2, \ldots, \lfloor n/2\rfloor\}\}$.
\item For $x=\crossing$ we use the set of triangles $\{(1,i,\lfloor n/2\rfloor+i): i\in\{2,\ldots, \lfloor n/2\rfloor\}\}$.
\item For $x=\ears$ we use the set of triangles $\{(3i-2,3i-1,3i): i\in\{1,\ldots, \lfloor n/3\rfloor\}\}$.
\item For $x=\swords$ we use the set of triangles $\{(i,\lfloor n/3\rfloor+2i-1,\lfloor n/3\rfloor+2i): i\in\{1,\ldots, \lfloor n/3\rfloor\}\}$.
\item For $x=\david$ we use the set of triangles $\{(i,\lfloor n/3\rfloor+i,\lfloor 2n/3\rfloor+i): i\in\{1,\ldots, \lfloor n/3\rfloor\}\}$.
\end{enumerate}
In each case, the size of the set is $\Omega(n)$ and it is
straightforward to verify that each pair of triangles in the set forms
the configuration $x$ and therefore avoids all configurations in $X$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Top/Bottom View}
It will be helpful to gain a sense of orientation by considering
a top/bottom variant of $\ex(n,X)$ that is defined as follows (see
\figref{top-bottom}). Partition the vertices of a convex $n$-gon using
a horizontal line into a \emph{top half} of size $\lceil n/2\rceil$
and a \emph{bottom half} of size $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$. We define
$\ex'(n,X)$ analogously to $\ex(n,X)$ except that we only count triangles
having one vertex in the bottom half and two vertices in the top half.
When studying $\ex'$, each triangle we count has a naturally defined
\emph{bottom vertex} in the bottom half and a \emph{left vertex} and
\emph{right vertex}, each in the top half.
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/left-right}
}
\caption{$\ex'$ only counts triangles with two vertices in the top half
and one vertex in the bottom half.}
\figlabel{top-bottom}
\end{figure}
Clearly $\ex(n,X)\ge\ex'(n,X)$. The following lemma shows that, without
losing much precision, we can also upper bound $\ex(n,X)$ by $\ex'(n,X)$.
\begin{lem}\lemlabel{top-bottom}
If $\ex'(n,X)\in O(n^c)$, then
\[
\ex(n,X)\in
\begin{cases}
O(n^c) & \text{if $c>1$} \\
O(n\log n) & \text{if $c=1$}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a set of triangles that avoids $X$. Every triangle in $S$
is of one of the following types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item It has one vertex in the top half and two in the bottom half;
there are $O(n^{c})$ such triangles.
\item It has two vertices in the top half and one in the bottom
half; there are $O(n^{c})$ such triangles.
\item It has all three vertices in the top half; there are at most
$\ex(\lceil n/2\rceil,X)$ such triangles.
\item It has all three vertices in the bottom half; there are at
most $\ex(\lfloor n/2\rfloor,X)$ such triangles.
\end{enumerate}
Thus, we obtain the recurrence inequality:
\[ \ex(n,X) \le O(n^{c}) + \ex(\lceil n/2\rceil,X) + \ex(\lfloor n/2\rfloor,X) \]
which resolves to $O(n^c)$ for $c>1$ and $O(n\log n)$ for $c=1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Dot Puzzle View}
The top-bottom version of the problem gives us a sense of orientation,
but it is still difficult to visualize the sets of triangles obtained
this way. Next, we show that there is a corresponding puzzle that is
easy to visualize. Refer to \figref{point-view}.
In this puzzle, we are given $\binom{n}{2}$ points,
\[
Q = \{(x,y): y\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}, x\in\{y+1,\ldots,n\} \} \enspace .
\]
These points model the top/bottom view on a convex $2n$-gon, where the
point $(x,y)$ represents a triangle whose vertices are some point on
the bottom and the $x$th and $y$th points on the top, where the top
vertices are labelled $1,\ldots,n$ from left to right.
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/point-view}
}
\caption{The Dot Puzzle View of the Top/Bottom View. In this example,
four rounds of the Dot Puzzle have been played.}
\figlabel{point-view}
\end{figure}
The dot puzzle proceeds in $n$ rounds and during the $i$th round, the
player selects a set $Q_i\subseteq Q$ subject to certain constraints
that depend on the points selected in rounds $1,\ldots,i-1$. In the
top/bottom view, the $i$th round determines which pairs of top vertices
form a triangle with the $i$th bottom vertex, where the bottom
vertices are labelled $1,\ldots,n$ from right to left.
Of course, the constraints on which points can be selected during
round $i$ depend on the set of forbidden configurations and the set
$\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} Q_j$ of points played during previous rounds.
By proving bounds on $\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i|$ we obtain bounds on the maximum
number of triangles obtained in the top-bottom view on a set of $2n$
points, i.e., bounds on $\ex'(2n, X)$.
\Figref{forbidden-color}.a shows restrictions on the locations of points
placed during a single round. It is interpreted as follows: If the
central point, $p=(x,y)$, is placed during round $i$, and we wish to
avoid some particular configuration, $c$, then we should not place any
points in the parts of the figure that have label $c$. For instance,
if we wish to avoid the $c=\taco$ configuration, then we
should not place any points in the same row or column as $p$; such a point
creates a $\taco$ configuration in which the shared edge
joins a bottom vertex to a left (same row) or right (same column) vertex.
\Figref{forbidden-color}.b shows the constraints placed on the locations
of points placed in subsequent rounds. Its interpretation is similar
\figref{forbidden-color}.a. For example, if we wish to avoid a
$\nested$ configuration and we place the central point, $p$, during round
$i$, then, in every round $j>i$, we should not place any point directly
to the left or directly below $p$. Any such point creates
a $\nested$ configuration in which the shared vertex is the left vertex
(to the left of $p$) or the right vertex (below $p$) of both triangles.
%One caveat worth noting is that, unless $\taco$ is a forbidden
%configuration, the same point can be chosen in different rounds.
%\begin{table}
%\begin{center}
%\begin{tabular}{m{1ex}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{.45\textwidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{.45\textwidth}}
% & killed by $(x,y)$ in later rounds
% & killed by $(x,y)$ in current round \\ \hline
%$\mariposa$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-1} \break%
% $\{\}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-1} \break%
% $\{(x',x)\} \cup \{(y,y')\}$ \\
%$\taco$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-2} \break%
% $\{(x,y)\}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-2} \break%
% $\{(x,y')\} \cup \{(x',y)\}$ \\
%$\bat$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-3} \break%
% $\{(x',y) : x'<x \}\cup\{(x,y') : y'<y \}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-3} \break%
% $\{(x',y'): x' < y\text{ or } y'> x\}$ \\
%$\nested$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-4} \break%
% $\{(x',y) : x'<x \}\cup\{(x,y') : y'<y \}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-4} \break%
% $\{(x',y'):\sign(x'-x)=\sign(y-y')\}$ \\
%$\crossing$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-5} \break%
% $\{(x',y) : x'>x \}\cup\{(x,y') : y'>y \}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-5} \break%
% $\{(x',y'):\sign(x'-x)=\sign(y'-y)\}$ \\
%$\ears$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-6} \break%
% $\{(x',y'): x'< y\}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-6} \break%
% $\{\}$ \\
%$\swords$ & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-7} \break%
% $\{(x',y'): x'>x, y'< y\}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-7} \break%
% $\{\}$ \\
%$\david$ &\includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killers-8} \break%
% $\{(x',y'): y < y' <x,\,\, x'>x\}$
% & \includegraphics[scale=.8]{figs/killersb-8} \break%
% $\{\}$ \\
%\end{tabular}
%\end{center}
% \caption{The restrictions placed on the dot puzzle when for each of
% the forbidden subconfigurations.}
% \tablabel{forbidden}
%\end{table}
%
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\newlength{\ka}
\setlength{\ka}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{1cm}}c}
\includegraphics{figs/crapper-2} &
\includegraphics{figs/crapper-1} \\[1em]
\includegraphics{figs/partition-1} &
\includegraphics{figs/partition-2} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{The regions killed by forbidden configurations during (a)~the current round and (b)~subsequent rounds.}
\figlabel{forbidden-color}
\end{figure}
For any
$X\subset\{\taco,\mariposa,\bat,\nested,\crossing,\ears,\swords,\david\}$
and any $S\subset Q$, we define $\killed(X,S)$ as the subset of $Q$ that
can no longer be played in the dot puzzle game (for configurations in
$X$) if the points is $S$ have been played in previous rounds (these are
the points of $Q$ $\kappa$illed by $S$). We use the complementary notation
$\survivors(X,S)=Q\setminus\killed(X,S)$ to be the subset of points in
$Q$ that can still be played in the dot puzzle game if the points is $S$
have been played in previous rounds.
\subsection{Some Warm-Up Exercises}
For the remainder of the paper, we will study $\ex'$ using the
dot puzzle view. Thus, all of our results are bounds on solutions to
these dot puzzles.
We say that a point set is \emph{non-decreasing} (respectively,
non-increasing) if, when sorted lexicographically, the $y$-coordinates of
the points form a non-decreasing (respectively, non-increasing) sequence.
A point set is \emph{increasing} (respectively, decreasing) if it is
non-decreasing (respectively, non-increasing) and no two of its points
points have the same $x$-coordinate or the same $y$-coordinate.
From \figref{forbidden-color}, some previous upper bounds naturally fall
out. Consider Bra\ss's results \cite{brass:turan} that $\ex(n,\{\nested\})\in
O(n^2)$. For the game defined by $X=\{\nested\}$, we have the rules:\\
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-3}}
In particular, these rules imply that points selected during a
single round of the dot puzzle must be non-decreasing, and thus
at most $2n-3$ points can be selected take part in $Q_i$. Thus
$\sum_{j=1}^{n}|Q_i| \le 2n^2-3n$, so $\ex'(n,\{\nested\})\in O(n^2)$
and the bound $\ex(n,\{\nested\})\in O(n^2)$ immediately follows from
\lemref{top-bottom}.
Similarly, we can almost recover the result of Bra\ss, Rote and
Swanepoel \cite{brass.rote.ea:triangles} on $\ex(n,\{\ears, \swords,
\bat,\nested\})$. Here, the rules are:\\
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-2}}
The rule for $\nested$ ensures that the set of points taken during a
single round form a non-decreasing point set. The rules for points
allowed in subsequent rounds ensure that, after round $i$ any points
chosen are not below or to the left of the topmost-rightmost point
in $Q_i$. Taken together, these rules imply that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n|Q_i| \le 3n-4 \enspace ,
\]
since the union of $Q_i$ is a non-decreasing point set (whose size is
therefore at most $2n-3$), and each $Q_i$ shares at most one point with
$Q_{i+1}$. The bound $\ex(n,\{\ears, \swords, \bat,\nested\})\in
O(n\log n)$ then follows from \lemref{top-bottom}.
\section{Results Based on Dot Puzzles}
\seclabel{new-results}
After this warm-up, and with the dot puzzle view, we are ready to prove
some new results. We begin by proving several linear upper bounds.
From this point on, each proof of a theorem will begin with a picture,
similar to \figref{forbidden-color} that shows the rules of the dot puzzle
considered by the theorem. For a point $q\in Q$, we use the notations
$\x(q)$ and $\y(q)$ to denote the $x$- and $y$-coordinates of $q$.
\subsection{Linear Upper Bounds}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{taco-nested-crossing}
$\ex'(n,\{\taco,\nested,\crossing\}) \in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-9}}
Taking the union of the rules for $\taco$, $\nested$, and $\crossing$,
we obtain the rule which ensures that during subsequent rounds we can
not take a point from any column or row used in a previous round.
The rules for $\nested$ and $\taco$ ensure that the set of points
taken in each $Q_i$ is increasing. Therefore each new point played
can be charged to a unique row, so the total number of points played
is at most $n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{nested-crossing-ears}
$\ex'(n,\{\nested,\crossing,\ears\})\in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-10}}
First observe that the rules for $\nested$ imply that each $Q_i$
is a non-decreasing set of points.
Next, observe that if $Q_i$ contains $k>1$ points, $p_1,\ldots,p_k$ in a single column
(or row), then each of the $k$ rows (or columns) containing one of these
points is covered by $\killed(\{\nested,\crossing\},\{p_1,\ldots,p_k\})$, i.e., $Q_{i+1},\ldots,Q_n$ can not contain any points in
these rows (or columns) (see \figref{nested-crossing-ears-i}).
Therefore, when summing $\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i|$,
the contribution of points that are not alone in their row or column
is at most $2n$. We therefore assume that each $Q_i$ contains at most
one point from each row and column, which now implies that each $Q_i$
is an increasing set of points.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/nested-crossing-ears-i}
}
\caption{A step in the proof of \thmref{nested-crossing-ears}.}
\figlabel{nested-crossing-ears-i}
\end{figure}
Let $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$ and notice that $S$ contains at most
one point from each row: each $Q_i$ contains at most one point
in each row and the first time a point $p$ appears in some row,
$\killed(\{\nested,\crossing\},\{p\})$ eliminates every other point
from that row.) Therefore $|S|\le n$. All that remains is to account for
multiplicity; a single point in $S$ can appear in more than one $Q_i$.
Now, because of the rules for $\crossing$, the fact that $Q_i$ is
increasing is quite restrictive. In particular, if we consider the last
(top rightmost) point, $p$, of $Q_i$, then it must be placed so that
$\killed(\{\ears\}, \{p\})$ contains all of $Q_i$ except $p$ and the
second-last point in $Q_i$ (see \figref{nested-crossing-ears}). That is,
$Q_i$ contains $|Q_i|-2$ points that cannot appear in $Q_{i+1},\ldots,Q_n$. We can think of $Q_i$ as eliminating $|Q_i|-2$ points from $S$, so
$\sum_{i=1}^n (|Q_i|-2) \le |S| \le n$,
so $\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i| \le 3n$.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/nested-crossing-ears}
}
\caption{Another step in the proof of \thmref{nested-crossing-ears}.}
\figlabel{nested-crossing-ears}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Our next three upper bounds depend on a simple lemma about forbidden
configurations of points:
\begin{lem}\lemlabel{forbidden}
Let $S$ be a subset of $\{1,\ldots,n\}^2$ with no three
points $a=(x_0,y_0)$, $b=(x_0,y_1)$, and $c=(x_1,y_1)$ with $y_0<y_1$
and $x_0<x_1$. Then $|S|\le 2n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If we remove the rightmost point from each row of $S$, then each
column in what remains of $S$ contains at most one point. Otherwise, we
could take $a$ to be the lowest point in a column, $b$ to be the highest
point in the same column, and $c$ to be the missing rightmost point
in $b$'s row.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{taco-nested-david}
$\ex'(n,\{\taco,\nested,\david\})\in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-11}}
Let $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$ be the set of points played in a solution
to the resulting dot puzzle. Note that, by the inclusion of $\taco$,
each element of $S$ appears in exactly one $Q_i$, so $|S|=\sum_{i=1}^n
|Q_i|$ is the quantity we are interested in bounding.
Next, we claim that $S$ does not contain any three points $a$, $b$, and
$c$ forming the configuration described in \lemref{forbidden}. Refer
to \figref{forbidden}. Suppose, for the sake of contradiction,
that this were not the case and that $a\in Q_i$, $b\in Q_j$, and
$c\in Q_k$. We have $a\in\killed(\{\nested\},\{b\})$ so $i\le j$.
We also have $b\in\killed(\{\nested\}, c)$ so $j\le k$. Finally,
we have $c\in\killed(\{\david\}, a)$, so $k \le i$. Taken together
we have, $i\le j\le k\le i$, so it must be that $i=j=k$. But this
is a contradiction since the rule for $\taco$ implies $i\neq j$ (and
$j\neq k)$. Applying \lemref{forbidden} then implies that $|S|\le 2n$.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/forbidden}
}
\caption{The proof of \thmref{taco-nested-david}. Any point $c$
that SE-dominates $b$ will complete the forbidden configuration $a,b,c$.}
\figlabel{forbidden}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{crossing-swords}
$\ex'(n,\{\crossing,\swords\}) \in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-8}}
Let $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$. We claim that $S$ satisfies the conditions
of \lemref{forbidden}, so $|S|\le 2n$. To see this, assume $S$
contains a configuration of three points $a$, $b$, and $c$ like
that described in \lemref{forbidden}. Then the rules for $\crossing$
imply that no set $Q_i$ contains both $a$ and $c$. However,
the rules for $\swords$ and $\crossing$ imply that, if $a\in Q_i$,
$b\in Q_j$ and $c\in Q_k$ then \[ i \ge j \ge k \ge i \enspace . \]
(See \figref{crossing-swords}).
But this is a contradiction, since it implies that $i=j=k$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/crossing-swords}
}
\caption{The proof of \thmref{crossing-swords}.}
\figlabel{crossing-swords}
\end{figure}
Now, for some $Q_i$, consider a point $p\in Q_i$ with $\x(p)=\xmin(Q_i)$ and,
in case more than one such point exists, take the the one that minimizes
$\y(p)$. Observe that $\killed(\{\crossing,\swords\},\{p\})
\supseteq Q_i\setminus\{p\}$. Indeed, every point directly above
or the the right of $p$ is killed by $p$ or cannot be included in
$Q_i$ because of the rule for $\crossing$. Therefore, each point in
$Q_i$ eliminates at least $|Q_i|-1$ points of $S$. It follows that
$\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i| \le |S|+n \le 3n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{nested-ears-david}
$\ex(n,\{\nested,\ears,\david\}) \in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-17}}
Let $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$. We will first show that, for each
$i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, there are at most two points of $Q_i$
that appear in $Q_{i+1},\ldots,Q_n$. Refer to \figref{nested-ears-david}.
Define
\[
Q_i^* = \{ (x,y)\in Q_1 : x\ge\ymax(Q_1) \} \enspace
\]
and let $p$ and $r$ be the top rightmost and bottom leftmost points
in $Q_i^*$, respectively. If there is more than one point in $Q_i^*$
with $x$-coordinate equal to $\x(r)$ (as in \figref{nested-ears-david}.a)
then we define $q$ to be the highest such point. Otherwise
(as in \figref{nested-ears-david}.b), we define $q$ to be the
rightmost point with $y$-coordinate $\y(r)$. Now, observe that
$\killed(\{\nested,\ears,\david\}, \{p,q,r\}) \supseteq Q_i\setminus
\{p,q\}$, so $p$ and $q$ are the only points of $Q_i$ that can appear
again in $Q_{i+1},\ldots,Q_n$.
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics{figs/nested-ears-david-1} &
\includegraphics{figs/nested-ears-david-2} \\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{A step in the proof of \thmref{nested-ears-david}.}
\figlabel{nested-ears-david}
\end{figure}
We can therefore think of $Q_i$ as eliminating $|Q_i|-2$ points
from $S$, so $\sum_{i=1}^n(|Q_i|-2) \le |S|$, which implies that
$\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i| \le |S|+2n$. All that remains now is to bound
$|S|$.
For each $i\in \{1,\ldots,n\}$, let $Q_i'$ be obtained
from $Q_i$ by removing the leftmost point in each row.
Let $S'=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i'$. We claim that $S'$ satisfies the
conditions of \lemref{forbidden}, so that $|S'|\le 2n$. To see why
this is so, suppose that $S'$ contains three points $a$, $b$, and $c$
forming the configuration described in \lemref{forbidden}. Then, as
argued in the proof of \thmref{taco-nested-david}, it must be that
$a,b,c\in Q_i'$ for some $i$. However, this contradicts the fact
(due to $\nested$) that $Q_i$ is non-decreasing since the leftmost
point, $b'$, of $Q_i$ in the same row as $b$ is to the left of $b$
(see \figref{nested-ears-david-ii}).
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\includegraphics{figs/nested-ears-david-ii}
}
\caption{Another step in the proof of \thmref{nested-ears-david}.}
\figlabel{nested-ears-david-ii}
\end{figure}
Therefore, $|S'|\le 2n$. Now let $S''=S\setminus S'$. Then we
claim that $S''$ also satisfies the conditions of \lemref{forbidden}.
Indeed, by the same reasoning as above, if there were $a,b,c\in
S''$ satisfying the conditions of \lemref{forbidden}, then it must
be that $a,b,c\in Q_i\setminus Q_i'$ for some $i$. But this is a
contradiction since $b$ and $c$ are in the same row, and $Q_i\setminus
Q_i'$ contains at most one point per row.
Wrapping up, we have $|S|=|S'|+|S''| \le 4n$ so $\sum_{i=1}^n|Q_i| \le 6n$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Forbidding Swords}
Next we focus on the configuration $\swords$ and give linear upper bounds
bounds on $\ex'(n,\{\swords, \taco\})$ and $\ex'(n,\{\swords, \nested\})$.
We begin with another lemma about forbidden configurations of points
that is similar to \lemref{forbidden}.
\begin{figure}
\centering{\includegraphics{figs/se-domination}}
\caption{The proof of \lemref{forbidden-ii}}.
\figlabel{se-domination}
\end{figure}
\begin{lem}\lemlabel{forbidden-ii}
Let $S$ be a subset of $\{1,\ldots,n\}^2$ with no three
points $a=(x_0,y_0)$, $b=(x_0,y_1)$, and $c=(x_1,y_1)$ with $x_1>x_0$ and
$y_2>y_1>y_0$. Then $|S|\le 2n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Refer to \figref{se-domination}.
We say that a point $(x_i,y_i)$ \emph{SE-dominates} a point $(x_j,y_j)$
if $x_i > x_j$ and $y_i < y_j$. Consider the \emph{Pareto boundary}
$P\subseteq S$ containing each point of $S$ that is not SE-dominated by any
other point in $S$. The set $P$ is non-decreasing, so it has size at
most $2n$. We claim that the set $S\setminus P$ has at most one point
in each column, so $|S|\le 3n$. To see why this claim is true, observe
that if some column of $P\setminus S$ contains two points $a$ and $b$
with $a$ above $b$, then at least one point $c$ in $P$ SE-dominates $b$
so that $a$, $b$, and $c$ would form the forbidden configuration.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{taco-swords}
$\ex'(n,\{\taco,\swords\}) \in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-6}} Let
$S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$. Then the rules for $\taco$ imply that
$|S|=\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i|$, so it suffices to bound $|S|$.
We claim that $S$ satisfies the conditions of \lemref{forbidden-ii},
so $|S|\le 3n$.
Suppose there were $a\in Q_i$, $b\in Q_j$, and $c\in Q_k$ forming the
forbidden configuration of \lemref{forbidden-ii}.
Now, $a\in\killed(\{\swords\}, \{c\})$ and
$c\in\killed(\{\swords\}, \{a\})$, so it must be that $i=k$. The same
argument, applied to $b$ and $c$, implies that $j=k$, so
$i=j=k$. But this is a contradiction since the rules for $\taco$ imply that
$i\neq j$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\thmlabel{nested-swords}
$\ex'(n,\{\nested,\swords\}) \in O(n)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-7}}
Let $S=\bigcup_{i=1}^n Q_i$. We claim that $S$ is non-decreasing.
Indeed, the rule for $\nested$ prevents two decreasing points from
being played in the same round, while the rule for $\swords$ prevents
two decreasing points from being played in different rounds.
This implies that $|S|\le 2n$. What remains is to account for points
of $S$ that are played in multiple rounds.
Consider the graph $G$ with vertex set $S$ and that contains an
edge $uw$ if and only if the $x$-coordinate of $u$ is equal to the
$y$-coordinate of $w$. We claim that $G$ is 4-colorable. To prove
this, we partition $S$ into two sets $A$ and $B$ and show that each of
the graphs $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ induced by $A$ and $B$ is 2-colourable
(in fact, $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ are each forests). Thus, if we color $A$
with colors $\{1,2\}$ and $B$ with colours $\{3,4\}$, then we obtain
a 4-colouring of $G$.
Refer to \figref{four-colouring}. Remove the bottom-most point of
$S$ from each column and what remains is the set $A$. Observe that,
since $S$ is non-decreasing, $A$ contains at most one point per row.
Imagine directing the edges of $G[A]$ from right to left (top to
bottom). Then, since each row contains at most one point of $A$, the
resulting directed graph has maximum in-degree 1. This directed graph
is also obviously acyclic, so there is an ordering $v_1,\ldots,v_{|A|}$
of $A$ such that, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,|A|\}$, $v_i$ is adjacent
in $G[A]$ to at most one of $v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}$. We can therefore
greedily 2-color $G[A]$ by colouring $v_1,\ldots,v_{|A|}$ in order and,
when colouring $v_i$, we use any colour in $\{1,2\}$ not already used
by $v_i$'s at most one neighbour in $v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics{figs/four-colouring-1} &
\includegraphics{figs/four-colouring-2} &
\includegraphics{figs/four-colouring-3} \\
$S$ & $G[A]$ & $G[B]$
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Four-colouring the graph $G$ in the proof of
\thmref{nested-swords}.}
\figlabel{four-colouring}
\end{figure}
The graph $G[B] = G[S\setminus A]$ can be 2-coloured in a similar
manner using the fact that each column contains at most most one
point of $B$.
The 4-colouring of $G$ partitions $S$ into 4 colour classes
$S_1,\ldots,S_4$. We now argue that each of these colour
classes contributes $O(n)$ to $\sum_{i=1}^n|Q_i|$.
Consider a (new) directed graph $H_j=(S_j,E)$ that
contains the edge $\overrightarrow{uw}$ if and only if
$u$ kills $w$, i.e., $w\in\killed(\{\nested,\swords\},\{u\})$.
We claim that this graph is \emph{complete}, i.e., for any $u,w\in
S$ at least one of $\overrightarrow{uw}$ or $\overrightarrow{wu}$ is
in $E$. To see why this is so, consider any two distinct points $u,w\in S_j$
with $u=(x_0,y_0)$ and $w=(x_1,y_1)$. Since $S$ (and hence $S_j$)
is non-decreasing we may assume, without loss of generality that
$x_0\le x_1$ and $y_0\le y_1$.
There are only
three cases to consider:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $y_0=y_1$, so $x_0 < x_1$. In this case $u\in\killed(\{\nested\},w)$, so $\overrightarrow{wu}\in E$.
\item $x_0=x_1$, so $y_0 < y_1$. In this case $u\in\killed(\{\nested\},w)$, so $\overrightarrow{wu}\in E$.
\item $x_0 < x_1$, $y_0 < y_1$, and $y_1 > x_0$. In this case $w\in\killed(\{\swords\}, \{u\})$, so $\overrightarrow{uw}\in E$.
\item $x_0 < x_1$, $y_0 < y_1$, and $y_1 < x_0$. In this case $u\in\killed(\{\swords\}, \{w\})$, so $\overrightarrow{wu}\in E$.
\item $x_0 < x_1$, $y_0 < y_1$, and $y_1 = x_0$. This case can not occur,
since in this case the graph $G$ contains the edge $uw$, so $u$ and $w$
are assigned different colours and at most one of them is $j$.
\end{enumerate}
Suppose now that $H$ contains a directed cycle
$C=u_0,\ldots,u_{\ell-1}$. Since the points in
this cycle all kill each other, i.e., $u_{k+1\bmod
\ell}\in\killed(\{\nested,\swords\},\{u_k\})$), it must be the case
that all the vertices of $C$ are played in the same round $i'\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and never
played again, i.e., $V(C)\subset Q_{i'}$
and $V(C)\cap Q_{j'}=\emptyset$ for all $j'\in\{1,\ldots,n\}\setminus
\{i'\}$.
Now, if we repeatedly find a cycle in $H$ and remove its vertices, we
will eventually be left with an acyclic subgraph $H'$ with vertex set
is $S'_j\subseteq S_j$. From the preceding discussion, we know that
each cycle vertex we remove contributes only 1 to $\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i|$:
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n |(S_j\setminus S_j')\cap Q_i| = |S_j\setminus S_j'| \enspace .
\]
Finally, we are left with the complete acyclic subgraph $H'$ whose
topological sort order we denote by $\prec$. Now, if $Q_i$ contains
$k_i$ vertices $v_1\prec\cdots\prec v_{k_i}$ vertices of $H'$, then
$v_1$ kills all of $v_2,\ldots,v_{k_i}$ so that these vertices can
not appear in any $Q_{i'}$ with $i'>i$. This implies that
\[
\sum_{i=1}^n (|S_j'\cap Q_i|-1) =
\sum_{i=1}^n (k_i-1) \le |S_j'|
\]
so $\sum_{i=1}^n k_i \le |S_j'|+n$. Putting everything together, we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^n|Q_i|
& = \sum_{j=1}^4\left(\sum_{i=1}^n |Q_i\cap S_j|\right) \\
& = \sum_{j=1}^4\left(\sum_{i=1}^n (|Q_i\cap(S_j\setminus S_j')|
+ |Q_i\cap S_j'|\right) \\
& \le \sum_{j=1}^4\left(|S_j\setminus S_j'| + |S_j'|+n\right) \\
& = |S|+4n \le 6n \enspace . \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Monotone Matrices, Tripod Packing, and 2-Comparable Sets}
\seclabel{tripods}
In this section, we discuss $\ex(n,\{\taco,\nested\})$:\\
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=3cm]{figs/helper-13}}
Determining the asymptotics of $\ex(n,\{\taco,\nested\})$ was given