We use the following precise form of the Szemerédi regularity lemma. For every and positive integer , there are integers such that every graph on vertices has a partition
with at most irregular unordered pairs among the nonexceptional classes. Here for disjoint nonempty sets, and is an -regular pair if
whenever , , , .
For the proof, let be the adjacency indicator, including , and define by averaging on even for diagonal cells. The regularity energy of a partition is
Every exceptional vertex is represented by its own singleton cell in this energy. If a rectangle is refined into smaller rectangles with densities and weights , expanding the square gives the refinement variance identity for regularity energy
Thus refinement never decreases energy.
Suppose an equitable partition with classes of size fails the desired conclusion. For every irregular pair choose witness subsets , , each of size at least , whose density differs from by more than . Split each class by all witness subsets involving it. Each class has at most atoms. On a witness rectangle, the weighted mean of is . The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality therefore bounds the energy increment on this rectangle below by
The different original cell pairs have disjoint rectangles. More than irregular unordered pairs, with both orientations counted in the energy, thus increase it by more than . As long as , this is greater than , and in particular greater than .
Restore equitability by dividing each atom into pieces of common size , moving each leftover vertex into the exceptional set as a singleton energy cell. This remains a refinement, so the energy gain persists. There are at most atoms, so the additional exceptional vertices number at most
If , then , and the new number of equal cells satisfies . For the lower bound, within each old class the leftover count is at most , so at least one full new cell survives. For the upper bound, , using . This proves equalization with a controlled exceptional set without any energy loss.
Put . Choose with . Start with equal classes and fewer than exceptional vertices. Iterate the bounded recurrence times to obtain a bound . Choose so large that the initial remainder is at most and, for every , . The total exceptional set remains at most , since at most rounds each add at most . Each failing round raises an energy in by more than , so fewer than rounds can fail. This proves the lemma with all constants independent of the input graph.
For the application, write and . We may replace the given tolerance by a smaller one, so assume . Set , take , and choose
Apply the lemma and delete all edges incident with , all edges inside a class, all edges across irregular pairs, and all edges across regular pairs of density below . The resulting spanning subgraph loses at most
Let be the reduced graph of a regularity partition, whose edges represent the surviving regular pairs of density at least . We show that a copy of in forces a copy of in .
Choose a proper -coloring of and assign its color classes to the corresponding clusters. Embed its vertices one at a time. For each unembedded vertex maintain the candidate set in its cluster consisting of unused vertices adjacent to all already embedded neighbours. After at most restrictions its size is at least . This last quantity is at least when is large, so every such candidate set is large enough for regularity. In an -regular pair of density , fewer than vertices on one side have fewer than neighbours in any fixed set on the other side of size at least : otherwise these vertices and violate regularity. For the vertex currently being embedded, there are at most relevant future candidate sets. At most vertices are bad for one of them. Its own candidate set has at least vertices, so an unused good vertex can be chosen. All future candidate sets shrink by at most the factor , apart from the removal of a used vertex; the stated size bound follows inductively, since the accumulated removals are at most . This completes the graph embedding lemma for regular pairs in the form needed here.
Since is -free, is -free. Any in would use distinct clusters, because intraclass edges were deleted, and project to a in . Therefore
The required threshold on depends only on and , since makes every nonexceptional cluster sufficiently large.
A linked graph is -linked if it has at least vertices and, for every choice of distinct terminals , it has pairwise vertex-disjoint graph paths joining to for all . The pairing is prescribed, which is stronger than the unpaired conclusion of the Menger theorem.
We prove the rooted dense minor linkage step carefully. We first prove the rooted branch-set reduction. Let be even, let , and suppose a graph has disjoint nonempty vertex sets , where . Suppose each is connected or every one of its graph components meets , and each is adjacent to all but at most of the other not meeting . Assume also that no rooted separation of a graph of order below avoids of these sets. Then there are disjoint connected vertex sets such that for and each of these first sets is adjacent to all but at most of .
Here adjacency of sets means existence of an edge between them. A rooted separation of a graph is with , , no edges between and , and order . It avoids when . We prove the reduction by induction, first on the vertex count and then on the edge count; any counterexample chosen minimal in this ordering will be impossible.
We may delete edges joining two vertices of . They cannot affect rooted separations of a graph, since lies wholly on the first side. Within a branch set, their deletion can only split a graph component into graph components each containing an endpoint in , so the branch-set hypothesis also persists. An isolated vertex outside and all branch sets can be deleted. An isolated vertex is also impossible, since has order and avoids at least sets. Thus in a minimal counterexample is independent, and every isolated vertex outside belongs to a singleton branch set.
Consider a rooted separation of a graph of order exactly avoiding at least branch sets, and put . Restrict to and . Each is nonempty: any not itself avoided is adjacent to at least one of the avoided sets, and the endpoint of such an edge in must lie in . If a graph component of misses , it lies in and is a whole graph component of , with no vertex of . The original hypothesis then forces to be connected and , entirely outside . Thus each restricted set is connected or all its graph components meet . In particular every missing equals an original set outside , so all its required adjacencies from persist.
A rooted separation of a graph of avoiding restricted sets lifts to in , of the same order: an avoided restricted set misses , hence is an original set outside . The edges removed inside do not obstruct lifting, since . This proves the required separation hypothesis for . If is smaller, induction gives the desired connected sets rooted at . Moreover has disjoint graph paths from to , by the Menger theorem. Indeed a separator of smaller order between these sets would give a rooted separation of a graph of of smaller order still avoiding those original sets. Truncate the graph paths at their first visits to , label their endpoints accordingly, and adjoin each graph path to the corresponding rooted connected set. They meet only in their distinct endpoints, so this gives the desired sets for , a contradiction. Consequently in a minimal counterexample every such separation of order has and , an independent set.
Now contract any edge whose endpoints do not belong to two different branch sets. Its endpoints cannot both lie in , so the image of still has size . The branch-set conditions persist. If the contraction created a forbidden rooted separation of a graph of order below , its lift would have order below , except possibly when the contracted vertex lies in its separator. In that case the lifted order increases by one and is at most . Equality would put the contracted edge inside , contradicting the just-proved independence of for an order- separation avoiding sets. Thus the separation hypothesis also persists. Applying induction in the contracted graph and expanding the contracted vertex would produce the required disjoint connected sets. Hence every edge in a minimal counterexample joins two different branch sets.
Every vertex outside the branch sets would be isolated, since every edge joins two branch sets; such an isolated vertex could be deleted. Thus the branch sets cover the graph. Each nonsingleton branch set is therefore an independent set, and all its vertices belong to , because each of its singleton graph components must meet . Let be the union of the nonsingleton branch sets, and write . There is a matching in a graph from into . Otherwise the Hall marriage theorem gives with neighbourhood satisfying . Since is independent, is a rooted separation of a graph of order . It avoids every singleton branch set outside , of which there are at least
The penultimate counting bound uses that the nonsingleton sets number at most , so . This contradicts the separation hypothesis.
Use that matching in a graph to make a two-vertex connected set for each terminal in ; terminals outside remain singleton sets. There are at least
unused vertices, all singleton original branch sets. Choose of them for the remaining . Every rooted contains a singleton original branch set: either its terminal, or its terminal's matched neighbour. That singleton misses at most of the selected nonterminal singleton sets. This constructs exactly the desired family, contradicting minimality and proving the branch-set reduction.
Return to the given -connected graph. By the allowed assumption it has a graph minor with , where . Put . Then
Take a branch-set model of and the prescribed terminals as . The branch sets are connected and each misses at most of the others. The separation hypothesis holds with : a separation of order below avoiding a branch set would separate a surviving terminal from that set, contrary even to -connectivity. Since , the reduction applies. It produces sets with , , each terminal set missing at most of the nonterminal sets. For each pair at least
nonterminal sets are adjacent to both. Choose different such sets for the pairs successively. The connected graph property inside the three sets and the two joining edges give a graph path from to ; take a simple graph path within their union. Different graph paths use disjoint sets. We have proved
In fact the argument proves the stronger transfer statement with -connectivity and the stated dense graph minor.
For the negative assertion, it suffices to give a value of for which the proposed general implication fails. Take and the graph on cyclic indices in which two indices are adjacent when their cyclic distance is one or two. This is the four-connected planar obstruction to two-linkage. Draw the even cycle in a graph as the outer square, the odd cycle in a graph as an inner square rotated by degrees of vertices, and join each odd vertex to the two neighbouring even vertices; the annulus is triangulated without crossings. The outer face has vertices in this order.
Figure 1.
A four-connected planar graph with alternating terminal pairs on a square face
. Details.
Deleting at most three vertices leaves the graph connected. In cyclic order, consecutive surviving vertices are joined unless separated by a run of at least two deleted vertices. Disconnection requires two distinct such runs, hence at least four deletions. Conversely deleting the four neighbours of a vertex isolates it, so the vertex connectivity is exactly four. Disjoint graph paths joining to and to cannot exist: both would lie in the closed disk complementary to the outer face, and their endpoints alternate on its boundary. A first such graph path is a crosscut of the disk; the Jordan curve theorem puts the other two endpoints on opposite sides, forcing the second graph path to meet it. Thus
This is a counterexample to the unrestricted implication; no claim that the same construction works for every is needed.
Each vertex of a bipartite graph has a strict preference ordering of its neighbours; every neighbour is preferred to being unmatched. A stable matching in a bipartite graph is a matching in a graph with no blocking edge: an unused edge blocks if both endpoints prefer each other to their assigned partners, interpreting an unmatched endpoint as willing to accept any neighbour. Stability does not require a perfect matching in a graph.
For existence, run the Gale-Shapley algorithm. Whenever a vertex in the first part is unmatched and has an untried neighbour, it proposes to its most preferred untried neighbour. A receiver keeps its preferred proposal and rejects the other, including any previously held proposal. At most proposals occur, so the procedure stops with a matching in a graph. Suppose an edge blocked this final matching in a graph. Since prefers to its final partner, or is unmatched, must have proposed to . But a receiver's held proposal only improves, so 's final partner is preferred to if was rejected. If was not rejected, the edge is in the matching in a graph. Both alternatives contradict blocking. Every finite bipartite preference instance therefore has a stable matching.
For the mutual-worst edge in stable matchings, let be stable matchings with and . We give the argument using alternating graph components including possible unmatched endpoints. If were unmatched in , then would have to prefer its -partner to , since otherwise would block . Following the -edge from , stability of forces its other endpoint to have and prefer an -partner. Stability of then forces the next vertex to have and prefer an -partner. These implications continue along the alternating graph component of . They cannot stop, because at a missing next edge the preceding edge would block the appropriate matching in a graph. They also cannot close into a cycle in a graph, since the graph component already has endpoint . This contradiction proves that is matched in . The same reasoning applies to .
Now prefers its -partner to , because is its worst choice. Along the alternating graph component, stability of forces that partner to prefer its -partner; stability of forces the next vertex in 's part to prefer its -partner, and so on. A graph path graph component is impossible by the same endpoint argument, so this is a cycle in a graph. Thus throughout this cycle in a graph the part containing prefers and the part containing prefers . In particular must prefer to its -partner. That contradicts being 's worst choice. Hence an edge ranked last by both endpoints, if present in one stable matching, is present in every stable matching.
For the list edge coloring assertion, let be the maximum degree. We first prove that the chromatic index is . Use induction on the number of edges, with a proper -edge coloring of . Some color is missing at and some color is missing at . If , color with it. Otherwise the edges of colors form alternating graph paths and even cycles in a graph. The graph component containing cannot contain : an alternating graph path from , starting with color , would end at with color , have even length, and place in the same bipartition class. Swap in the graph component containing . Now is missing at both ends of , so it can be colored . The lower bound is immediate at a vertex of vertex degree .
Fix such a proper coloring . Orient the line graph toward the smaller color at vertices in the first part of , and toward the larger color at vertices in the second part. A vertex of the line graph corresponding to an edge of color has outdegree at most
Every induced subgraph of this orientation has a digraph kernel. Indeed, restrict to its edge set in the original bipartite graph, give first-part vertices a preference for smaller colors and second-part vertices a preference for larger colors, and choose a stable matching. Its edges form an independent set in the line graph. Every edge outside the matching in a graph has an endpoint whose partner is preferred to it, by stability; thus it has an outgoing edge to the independent set. This proves that the orientation is a kernel-perfect directed graph.
Here is the kernel list-coloring lemma with its proof. If a kernel-perfect directed graph has lists satisfying , choose any color appearing in a list and a digraph kernel of the induced subgraph on vertices whose lists contain . Color with , delete , and delete from the remaining lists. Each remaining vertex that loses a color had an outgoing neighbour in , so its outdegree decreases by at least one; the list inequality persists. Vertices not losing a color also retain the inequality. Induction on the number of vertices completes a proper list coloring.
Lists of size satisfy that lemma for our oriented line graph, so . Identical lists show . Consequently the Galvin theorem for bipartite list edge coloring gives
The empty graph is immediate; if parallel edges are allowed, orient their line-graph adjacency in both directions when the two endpoints prescribe opposite directions. The outdegree bound still holds, and the same stable matching and digraph kernel proof applies with preferences on incident edges.
Write for a balanced complete multipartite blow-up with classes of size . In the nonvacuous range , the answer is
We prove both bounds, including the quantitative lower bound.
First, suppose a bipartite graph with parts , of sizes , has at least edges. For any integer , counting pairs consisting of an -subset of and a common neighbour in gives
The inequality follows from discrete convexity: is nondecreasing, so balancing integer degrees of vertices minimizes their sum. Consequently some has
The product estimate uses for . This is a common neighbourhood from bipartite density bound.
We next prove by induction on that, for every fixed , a graph of order with minimum degree at least contains , for some and all sufficiently large . Impossible minimum-vertex degree parameters need no argument. For , take two copies of with adjacency given by . The preceding count with and , where , gives at least common neighbours. The selected vertices and their common neighbours are disjoint in , since a vertex is not its own neighbour. Selecting common neighbours gives .
For , the minimum degree hypothesis implies the induction hypothesis for , for example with excess . Thus contains with for a positive constant . Pair the vertices in its classes into disjoint transversal cliques , each of order . By the union bound, every has at least
common neighbours. Form an auxiliary bipartite graph between these cliques and the vertices, using common-neighbour incidence, and put . Choose small enough that and . The count above, with , gives cliques with at least simultaneous common neighbours. Their vertices form classes of size , and of those common neighbours form the last class. None of the common neighbours belongs to a selected clique, because that would require a loop. This proves the logarithmic clique blow-up from minimum degree assertion.
To pass from an edge count to minimum degree, put and . Repeatedly remove a vertex whose current degree of a vertex is below times the current order. If the process reaches order , its deleted edges and remaining edges give
Thus . In particular, for a fixed sufficiently small , the process cannot reach : the displayed inequality would fail. It stops earlier with a subgraph of order and minimum degree at least . The induction just proved supplies , hence a lower bound on . In particular, the guaranteed part size tends to infinity.
For the upper bound, choose a fixed with and take a binomial random graph . Its edge count has expectation and variance . The Chebyshev inequality shows that with probability tending to one. The expected number of labeled copies of is at most
For and , this tends to zero. The Markov inequality therefore shows that with positive probability both the required edge density holds and there is no such copy. This proves and completes the random obstruction to larger clique blow-ups argument.
There is a necessary qualification to the density parameter. If , the only eligible graph is the complete graph, and . If and , there are no eligible simple graphs; the universal assertion is vacuous for every , so the printed maximum has no finite value in that range.
Let be the uncentered maximal function of , defined by its averages over balls. First establish the strong estimate needed below. The uncentered maximal weak-type inequality gives the weak bound with , and plainly for bounded inputs. For , split it into its parts on and . The first part is in , since , and the second part contributes at most to the maximal function. Sublinearity therefore gives
Integrating this bound with layer cake representation and Tonelli theorem yields
This proves the strong Lp bound from weak L1 and L-infinity bounds directly. In particular is finite almost everywhere.
Now split the positive Riesz potential of at a radius . In the near region, decompose into annuli . On the th annulus,
The geometric series converges because . In the far region, Hölder's inequality, with , gives
The radial integral is finite exactly because . Combining these bounds, including the fixed Riesz normalization constant, gives
For , choose . If , every ball average vanishes and almost everywhere, so the assertion is trivial. The zero-norm case is likewise trivial. The resulting Hedberg inequality is
This proves absolute convergence of the defining integral for almost every , also for signed or complex . Put . The proposed exponent satisfies , so . Raising the pointwise estimate to the th power and using the proved maximal bound gives
Thus the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality follows from the estimates just derived, rather than being quoted in place of its proof.
For uniqueness of the target exponent, suppose such a uniform estimate holds with index instead. Choose a nonzero nonnegative bump function and let for . Homogeneity of the Riesz potential gives
The assumed estimate at makes the nonzero output's norm finite. For all it must therefore satisfy
with when . Letting tend to zero or infinity forces the power of to vanish:
Hence no other target index is possible.
For the Sobolev embedding, take and , so the preceding result is available with . For , the vector field has zero divergence in away from . Integrating by parts outside the ball , its inner boundary contributes times the spherical average of about . The outer boundary contributes zero because has compact support. Letting proves
The absolute value is at most . Thus
For a general member of the first-order Sobolev space , approximate in the Sobolev norm by compactly supported smooth functions. This density of smooth functions in a Sobolev space follows from cutoffs tending to one and subsequent mollification: the cutoff-gradient term tends to zero in , and a mollifier approximates both the function and each weak derivative. The displayed estimate makes the approximants Cauchy in . Their limit is the original function, so subsequences converging almost everywhere identify the limit with it. This proves continuous embedding. The range is essential for this consequence; the formula is not a general critical embedding into .
Use the Fourier transform convention . The deleted-ball kernel need not be integrable at infinity, so first work with finite annuli. Write
We will prove a uniform bound, convergence as , and then convergence as . This makes all Fourier-transform assertions precise for the annularly cancelling singular convolution kernel.
Fix and put , so . For , let and define
The Hörmander integral kernel condition gives
On changing variables , the phase factor shows . The symmetric difference between and lies in the two shells whose radii are within of and . On each such shell, the kernel's size bound gives, by polar integration,
Therefore
and adding the two comparisons proves the oscillatory tail estimate for a singular kernel:
The integral on the right is at most . Moreover, for fixed , it tends to zero as because the translated difference is absolutely integrable outside . The shell term also tends to zero. Thus the far Fourier integral is Cauchy and converges as its outer radius tends to infinity.
Set . If , annular cancellation allows subtraction of the constant phase on the near annulus:
The same estimate applies to a shorter near annulus when . The far annulus is bounded by , using the tail estimate; if , apply that estimate with . At the annular integral vanishes by cancellation. We have proved
For each fixed , the size bound makes , and in as . By the Plancherel theorem, their Fourier transforms converge in to . The pointwise improper limits just established identify this transform, up to a null set, with
For example identification follows by selecting an almost-everywhere convergent subsequence from the convergence. Hence
The near-annulus integral with the constant phase subtracted converges absolutely at zero, since its bound is proportional to . The far integral has already converged. Therefore for every , with the same uniform bound; the value at zero may be set arbitrarily.
For , the convolution is absolutely convergent for each by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Its Fourier transform is : first prove this for Schwartz functions and then approximate any input. The convolutions converge uniformly under this approximation by the same Cauchy-Schwarz bound, and the multiplier outputs converge in by their uniform operator bound, so these two definitions agree. Define the bounded Fourier multiplier operator by . Dominated convergence theorem and the Plancherel theorem now give
For the final request, use a normalized bump function, , so that its dilates form an approximate identity. Multiplying Fourier transforms gives
These products are integrable by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, since , and also define functions because and are bounded. Thus the convolution identity is justified even though need not be in :
The allowed standard approximate identity results, applied to , prove convergence to in norm and almost everywhere. This is the mass normalization in mollified singular integrals; it does not require proving almost-everywhere convergence of the sharp truncations .
If “bump function” means merely smooth with compact support, the stated limit needs the unit-integral qualification. For arbitrary such , the limit is instead. This is also the almost-everywhere limit: at each Lebesgue point of , subtract inside the convolution and bound the remaining local average by the boundedness and compact support of . As a concrete counterexample without normalization, take in dimension one and for a unit-integral mollifier . This kernel has the required size, odd annular cancellation, and translation-difference integral on for every . Its limit operator is the nonzero Hilbert transform; by the Hilbert-transform Fourier multiplier, it is an isometry. For any nonzero the mollified limit is , not .
For , weak type with a normed domain means that there is a constant independent of and such that
Here consists of measurable functions modulo equality almost everywhere. A sublinear operator satisfies absolute homogeneity and the pointwise domination . In particular the definition controls the output's superlevel measures, not necessarily its strong norm. At , weak type is interpreted as the bound .
A useful theorem is dense approximation under a weak-type maximal bound. Let be linear operators indexed by parameters tending to zero, and let be another linear operator. Suppose there is a nonnegative sublinear operator of weak type such that , simultaneously in outside a null set for each input. Assume the suprema and limiting suprema used below are measurable. If almost everywhere for every in a dense subspace , then almost everywhere for every . For a sequence of operators all suprema are automatically countable; continuously parametrized averages below also have measurable suprema.
To prove the theorem, fix and . Outside the exceptional sets for these inputs, linearity and domination give
Thus for every the set where this limiting error exceeds has measure at most . Choose a sequence converging to in norm and take the union of their null exceptional sets. Letting makes the bound zero. Taking countably many positive rational proves convergence almost everywhere. This proves the requested sufficient condition rather than merely invoking a convergence theorem.
For the measure estimate, give finite signed measures the total variation norm of a measure . The uncentered maximal function of a finite measure is sublinear because . Its set is open: it is precisely the union of open balls whose variation mass exceeds times their volume.
Fix a compact subset and select a finite cover of by these high-density balls. Order that finite collection by decreasing radius. Keep a ball if it is disjoint from all previously retained balls. Every discarded ball intersects a retained ball of at least its radius and is contained in that retained ball's triple dilation. The retained balls are disjoint and their triples cover . Therefore
By inner regularity of Lebesgue measure, take the supremum over compact to obtain
This is the uncentered maximal weak-type inequality, and proves weak type even when the measure has atoms.
Finally work in dimension one. For define the linear operator
Its absolute value is bounded by : first enlarge the interval slightly to put inside an open interval and then let the enlargement tend to zero. The endpoint masses vanish because is absolutely continuous. Taking , both operators are dominated by . The maximal bound and the Markov inequality give .
Continuous compactly supported functions are dense in the L1 space, and their averages tend to their values as from either side. For a fixed , the interval integral varies continuously for , so the required suprema can be taken over rational and are measurable. Apply the proved weak-type theorem to conclude almost everywhere. Hence
Work deterministically with nonnegative arrivals. Write for integer , and . The relevant metric is
This is the weighted cumulative-input topology for a slotted queue. It is a genuine norm on the ambient space of sequences with finite value: zero cumulative differences force every individual difference to vanish, since . Every input in the specified set has finite norm, because its long prefixes are bounded by and there are only finitely many earlier prefixes.
Use the conventional net-input slot boundary finite-buffer workload map, whose recursion is the clipped Lindley recursion
Arriving work in a slot is available to that slot's service, and the observed queue state is after service and upper clipping. This fixes the slot convention explicitly. The queue size is obtained by starting in the distant past and taking the present workload. We first prove that, under the stated strict drift condition, this is uniquely defined independently of the initial state.
Fix and write . Choose a finite integer so large that
Then . Start at time with a full buffer . The trajectory must hit zero by time zero. Otherwise lower clipping is never used, so for nonnegative lost-work amounts the total recursion would give
contradicting nonnegativity. If zero is attained even at the last update the desired conclusion still holds.
The update is monotone in the initial workload. Couple all starting values in using the same arrivals. When the trajectory starting at reaches zero, all smaller trajectories must also be zero, and they remain identical thereafter. Thus the present queue depends only on the last slots, not on any earlier state or arrivals. This is finite-memory continuity of a finite-buffer queue. In particular it proves the existence and uniqueness of without assuming a random stationary law.
The same memory horizon works in a neighborhood of . If , then
The full-buffer trajectory for therefore also reaches zero within this horizon. Both and can consequently be calculated from initial workload zero at time , even though their respective reset times need not coincide.
Clipping to is Lipschitz continuous with constant one, so
Iterating from the common initial value zero gives
The cumulative-input norm bounds each summand:
Summing proves the explicit local estimate
Given , choose . Then the workload difference is less than . Since was arbitrary, the queue size function is continuous on .
The argument also handles the alternative slot ordering that clips arrivals to the buffer before serving them: its update is a composition of monotone one-Lipschitz clipping and service maps, and negative total net input forces a reset. Measuring immediately after arrivals instead adds one finite-coordinate update, which is likewise continuous in this norm. The essential point is strict subcritical drift and loss of dependence on the remote past, rather than incorrectly replacing a finite-buffer history by the minimum of and an infinite-buffer workload.
A standard form of Varadhan's integral theorem is as follows. Let be probability measures on a Polish space satisfying a large deviation principle with speed and good rate function . If is continuous and bounded above, then
The usual bounded-continuous version follows immediately. If is unbounded above, the same conclusion holds under the additional exponential tail condition
This is the exponential tail extension of Varadhan's lemma. A convenient sufficient hypothesis is
An integrability hypothesis is essential for general unbounded functions; the ordinary large deviation principle alone does not control arbitrarily large exponential weights.
For example, let with probability and otherwise. It satisfies the large deviation principle at speed with rate zero at zero and infinite elsewhere. But for , , whose logarithmic rate diverges, while . This shows why the tail hypothesis cannot simply be omitted.
For the lower bound, fix with and . By continuity choose an open set containing on which . Then
Apply the open-set lower bound of the large deviation principle:
Let and take the supremum over to obtain the required lower bound. This argument also applies when is not bounded above.
For the upper bound, suppose and set , which is finite. Choose a large and partition into finitely many closed intervals of length at most . The preimages
are closed sets. The overlapping endpoints do not matter for an upper estimate. Split off the lower tail and bound each remaining exponential weight:
For a finite sum of nonnegative terms the upper logarithmic rate is at most the largest of their upper logarithmic rates. Applying the closed-set upper bound gives
For , , hence every inner term is at most . Empty preimages contribute no term. Let and then to get the upper bound . Together with the lower bound this proves the bounded-above theorem.
For the unbounded extension, put . This is continuous and bounded above, so the proved result applies, with
The full integral is at most the integral with plus the integral on . The upper logarithmic rate is therefore at most the larger of and the tail rate. The tail hypothesis and then give the upper bound ; the earlier local argument gives the lower bound. If , that lower argument already yields the asserted infinite limit.
Finally, the sufficient exponential-moment condition really implies the required tail estimate: on ,
After integration the upper logarithmic rate is bounded by a finite constant minus , which tends to . This completes the statement and proof of Varadhan's lemma, including the hypotheses needed for the unbounded version.
Let and let the daily distances be independent and identically distributed random variables with probabilities , . The unconditioned mean daily distance is , whereas the observed trip requires a daily average near . Conditioning on that rare average changes the typical frequencies substantially. It does not determine an exact boost count.
Use the method of types: for a fixed finite alphabet, the probability of an empirical distribution is
where is relative entropy, using natural logarithms. This follows directly from Stirling's approximation. There are only polynomially many types, so the empirical distribution conditional on a mean constraint concentrates at its unique relative entropy minimizer, when admissible lattice types approximate that minimizer. Any fixed neighborhood of it has a strictly smaller minimum cost than its complement.
Minimize subject to and . The entropy minimization under a prescribed sample mean gives the exponential tilting
To verify minimization without relying only on Lagrange multipliers, any feasible distribution satisfies
Relative entropy nonnegativity makes the unique minimizer. Its mean determines through , or
The derivative of the tilted mean is the tilted variance, which is strictly positive. The mean rises from at to as , so this equation has one positive solution. Numerically,
The predicted boost count is . Thus the conditional large-deviation estimate is about 382 boosts.
For exact arrival at total distance , let count days of distances . The constraints give
Consequently can be any even integer from to . In particular, a unique count cannot be inferred from the return time. The exact conditional weights are proportional to
Their most probable count is , consistent with the exponential tilting calculation. This finite-sample inference is a conditional probability statement, not an assertion that all journeys with the stated duration have that count.
If returning home means first crossing the distance threshold on day , the final total instead lies between and . The last increment must exceed the overshoot; for fixed counts this selects the corresponding fraction of possible last days. Near the tilted optimum that factor is bounded away from zero, so it does not alter the leading exponential type cost. The same approximate answer follows. Exact conditional enumeration of this first-arrival interpretation also has mode .

There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.