The set of ratios of derangements to permutations in digraphs is dense in $[0, 1/2]$

Abstract: A permutation in a digraph $G=(V, E)$ is a bijection $f:V \rightarrow V$ such that for all $v \in V$ we either have that $f$ fixes $v$ or $(v, f(v)) \in E$. A derangement in $G$ is a permutation that does not fix any vertex. In [1] it is proved that in any digraph, the ratio of derangements to permutations is at most $1/2$. Answering a question posed in [1], we show that the set of possible ratios of derangements to permutations in digraphs is dense in the interval $[0, 1/2]$.

\section{Introduction}

A {\em permutation} in a digraph $G=(V, E)$ is a bijection $f:V \rightarrow V$ such that for all $v \in V$ we either have that $f$ fixes $v$ or $(v, f(v)) \in E$. A {\em derangement} in $G$ is a permutation that does not fix any vertex. We define the parameter $(d/p)_G$ to be the ratio of derangements to permutations in $G$.

Bucic, Devlin, Hendon, Horne and Lund \cite{BDHHL} showed that $(d/p)_G \le 1/2$ for all digraphs $G$, with equality if and only if $G$ is a directed cycle. They also gave a construction (the blow-up of a directed cycle) that can achieve a ratio arbitrarily close to but not equal to $1/2$. Let $S=\{(d/p)_G\; :\; G \;\;\text{is a digraph}\}$ be a set of values arising as a ratio $(d/p).$ In \cite{BDHHL} they analyzed the ratio $(d/p)_G$ for the random graph $G=G(n, m)$, and as a corollary of this analysis they showed that $S$ is dense in $[0, 1/e]$. This corollary follows from two facts:  $(d/p)_G$ is concentrated around its mean, and by choosing a suitable value of $m$ one can make the expected ratio $(d/p)_G$ close to any given value in $[0, 1/e]$. At the end of the paper \cite{BDHHL} they ask whether $S$ is dense in $[0, 1/2]$. Our main theorem, below, answers this question in the positive.

\begin{maintheorem}\label{thm:main}
The set of possible ratios of derangements to permutations in digraphs is dense in $[0, 1/2]$.
\end{maintheorem}

The construction we use, described in more detail later, is a random subgraph of the blow-up of a directed cycle. The main part of the proof is an application of the second moment method (see \cite{FK}, for example, for an introduction to the method) to show that the number of derangements and permutations are concentrated around their expectations.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}}

\subsection{Outline}
First we outline the proof. Suppose we are given a fixed real number  $r \in [0, 1/2]$. We will show that there exists a sequence of digraphs $G_k$ such that the ratio of derangements to permutations in $G_k$ is $r+o(1)$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$ (which proves Theorem \ref{thm:main}). If $r=0$ or $1/2$ this is trivial. Indeed, for $r=0$ observe that a digraph with one vertex and no edges has no derangements and one permutation, and for $r=1/2$ observe that any directed cycle has one derangement and two permutations. So we assume $0 < r < 1/2$.

Our construction is as follows. As defined in \cite{BDHHL}, let the digraph $D_{k,\l}$ where $k\geq 1$ and $\l\geq 2$ have vertices $v_{ij}$ for $i\in [k]$ and $j\in[\l]$ such that $(v_{ij}, v_{lm})\in E(D_{k,\l})$ if and only if $m=j+1\, \text{mod}\, l$. In other words, $D_{k, \l}$ is the blow-up of a directed $\l$-cycle where each vertex is expanded to a set of $k$ vertices. We let $V_i = \{v_{ij}: j \in [\l]\}$.
 As was shown in \cite{BDHHL}, the number of derangements on $D_{k,\l}$ is $(k!)^\l$ and the number of permutations on $D_{k,\l}$ is $\sum_{i=0}^k\left(\binom{k}{i} (k-i)!\right)^\l$. Hence, $(d/p)_{k,\l}=\left(\sum_{i=0}^k \left(\frac{1}{i!} \right)^\l\right)^{-1}$  can be made arbitrarily close to 1/2 by choosing $\ell$ large enough (even for large $k$). This construction yields a graph for which the ratio of derangements to permutations is arbitrarily close to 1/2 but not exactly 1/2. We will also use this construction, but we will randomly remove some edges. By taking a random subraph  we can ``interpolate" between $D_{k, \l}$ (a dense digraph whose ratio of derangements to permutations is close to $1/2$) and a sparse random digraph (whose ratio is $0$).

 In this paper all asymptotics are as $k \rightarrow \infty$. $\l$ is treated as fixed. We use standard big-O, little-o and $\Omega$ notation. We write $x \sim y$ if $x=(1+o(1))y$. All logarithms are base $e$.

 \subsection{Proof details}

 Let the random graph $G_{k,\l}(m)$  be chosen uniformly from among all subgraphs of $D_{k,\l}$ with $m$ edges. We will fix some $p, \l$ and let $m = pk^2 \l$ (so $p$ is the probability that any particular edge of $D_{k,\l}$ becomes an edge of $G_{k,\l}$). Let the random variables $X, Y$ be the number of derangements and permutations in $G_{k,\l}(m)$ respectively. Let $\mc{D}, \mc{P}$ be the collection of all possible derangements and permutations on $D_{k,\l}(m)$.

 \subsubsection{First moments of $X, Y$}
 We have
 \begin{align}
     \mathbb{E}[X] &= \sum_{D \in \mc{D}}\mathbb{P}[D\subseteq G_{k, \l}]=(k!)^\l\frac{\binom{k^2\l-k \l}{m-k \l} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m}}\nonumber\\
     &=(k!)^\l \left(\frac{m}{k^2\ell} \right)^{k\ell}\exp\left\{\frac{k^2 \ell^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{k^2\ell}-\frac{1}{m}\right)+O\left(\frac{k^3}{m^2} + \frac{k}{m} \right) \right\}\nonumber\\
     &\sim (k!)^\l p^{k\ell}\exp\left\{\frac{ \ell}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\}\label{eqn:EX}
 \end{align}
where on the second line we have used the following fact:
\begin{fact}\label{fact:edgeprob}
\[
\frac{\binom{a-x}{b-x} }{\binom{a}{b}} = \frac{(b)_x}{(a)_x} = \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \exp\cbrac{\frac{x^2}{2}\rbrac{\frac1a - \frac1b} + O\rbrac{\frac{x^3}{b^2} + \frac xb}}.
\]
\end{fact}
For completeness we include the proof although it is well-known.
\begin{proof}
\begin{align*}
    \frac{(b)_x}{(a)_x} &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \cdot \frac{1 \rbrac{1-\frac 1b}\rbrac{1-\frac 2b} \cdots \rbrac{1-\frac {x-1}b} }{1 \rbrac{1-\frac 1a}\rbrac{1-\frac 2a} \cdots \rbrac{1-\frac {x-1}a}}\\
    &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \cdot \exp\cbrac{\sum_{i=0}^{x-1} \sbrac{ \ln\rbrac{1-\frac{i}{b} }- \ln\rbrac{1-\frac{i}{a}} }}\\
    &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \cdot \exp\cbrac{\sum_{i=0}^{x-1} \sbrac{ -\frac ib + \frac ia + O\rbrac{\frac{i^2}{a^2} + \frac{i^2}{b^2}} }}\\
    &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \cdot \exp\cbrac{ \frac{x(x-1)}{2} \rbrac{\frac1a - \frac1b} + O\rbrac{\frac{x^3}{b^2}}  }\\
    &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^x \exp\cbrac{\frac{x^2}{2}\rbrac{\frac1a - \frac1b} + O\rbrac{\frac{x^3}{b^2} + \frac xb}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Before we calculate $\mathbb{E}[Y]$ we introduce a function $f_\l(x)$. For any integer $\l \ge 1$, let
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:deff}
    f_\l(x) := \sum_{i=0}^\infty\frac{ x^{i \l}}{(i!)^\l} .
\end{equation}
 Note that the above power series for $f_\l(x)$ converges for all $x$ and therefore in particular each $f_\l$ is continuous in $x$. We have
 \begin{align}
     \mathbb{E}[Y] &= \sum_{P \in \mc{P}}\mathbb{P}[P\subseteq G_{k, \l}]=\sum_{i=0}^k\left( \binom{k}{i}(k-i)!\right)^\l \frac{\binom{k^2\l-(k-i) \l}{m-(k-i) \l} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} }\nonumber\\
     &= \sum_{i=0}^k\left( \frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\l  \left(\frac{m}{k^2\ell} \right)^{(k-i) \l} \exp\left\{\frac{(k-i)^2 \l^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{k^2\ell}-\frac{1}{m}\right)+O\left(\frac{k^3 }{m^2}  + \frac km \right) \right\}\nonumber\\
       &= (k!)^\l p^{k\l} \sum_{i=0}^k\left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l} \exp\left\{\frac{ \l}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) + O\rbrac{\frac{i+1}{k}} \right\} \label{eqn:EY1}.\end{align}
       We split the above sum into two ranges of $i
       $.  Note that for $0 \le i \le \sqrt{k}$ we have \newline $\exp\cbrac{O\rbrac{\frac{i+1}{k}}} = 1+O\rbrac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}}$, while for   $\sqrt{k} \le i \le k$ we have $\exp\cbrac{O\rbrac{\frac{i+1}{k}}}=O(1)$. Thus line \eqref{eqn:EY1} becomes
    \begin{equation}
        (k!)^\l p^{k\l} \sbrac{ \rbrac{1+ O\rbrac{\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}}}\exp\left\{\frac{ \l}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)  \right\}\sum_{0 \le i \le \sqrt{k}} \left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l}  + O(1)\sum_{\sqrt{k}<i \le k} \left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l} } \label{eqn:EY2}.
    \end{equation}
    As $k \rightarrow \infty$ we have $$\sum_{0 \le i \le \sqrt{k}} \left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l} \rightarrow f_\l(1/p), $$ and
    $$\sum_{\sqrt{k} < i \le k} \left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l} \le \sum_{i=\sqrt{k}}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l  p^{-i \l} =o(1) $$ since the latter is the tail of a convergent series. Thus, returning to our estimate of $\mathbb{E}[Y]$ on line \eqref{eqn:EY2}, we have
      \begin{equation}
         \mathbb{E}[Y] \sim (k!)^\l p^{k\l} \exp\left\{\frac{ \l}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)  \right\}f_\l(1/p). \label{eqn:EY}
      \end{equation}

      \subsubsection{Choosing $p, \l$}

Now that we know $\mathbb{E}[X], \mathbb{E}[Y]$ we will choose $p, \l$ to make sure that the ratio of $\mathbb{E}[X]$ to $\mathbb{E}[Y]$ is close to $r$. Using lines \eqref{eqn:EX} and \eqref{eqn:EY} we have
 \[
 \frac{\mathbb{E}[X]}{\mathbb{E}[Y]} \sim \frac{1}{f_\l\rbrac{\frac1p}},
 \]
 so we would like to choose $\l$ and $0<p<1$ so that $f_\l(1/p) = 1/r$. We have
\[
\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} f_\l(x) = \infty , \qquad f_\l(1) = \sum_{i=0}^k\left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l = 1 + 1 + \frac{1}{2^\l} +  \frac{1}{6^\l} + \frac{1}{24^\l} + \ldots.
\]
Note that we can make $f_\l(1)$ arbitrarily close to 2 by taking $\l$ large. Indeed, we have $f_\l(1) \ge 2$ and
\begin{align*}
     f_\l(1) = 2+ \sum_{i\ge 2}\left( \frac{1}{i!}\right)^\l &\leq 2+ \sum_{i\geq 2} \left( \frac{1}{2^{i-1} }\right)^\ell =2+ \frac{1}{2^\ell - 1}.
    \end{align*}
Since $r<1/2$, we can choose $\l$ so that $f_{\l}(1) <  1/r$. Then by the intermediate value theorem there is some $x \in (1, \infty)$ such that $f_\l(x) = 1/r$. We choose $p$ to be the value $1/x$, so $0<p<1$  and $f_\l(1/p) = 1/r$. So we view $\l$ and $p$ as constants determined entirely by $r$.

\subsubsection{Second moments of $X, Y$}

In this section we show that $\mathbb{E}[X^2] \sim \mathbb{E}[X]^2$ and $\mathbb{E}[Y^2] \sim \mathbb{E}[Y]^2$. This will complete the proof, since then by the second moment method we have that
\[
\frac XY \sim \frac{\mathbb{E}[X]}{\mathbb{E}[Y]} \sim \frac{1}{f_\l(1/p)} = r.
\]
with probability approaching 1 as $k$ goes to infinity.

To help us estimate $\mathbb{E}[X^2], \mathbb{E}[Y^2]$ we will find the function $h(a, b)$ (defined below) useful. Suppose we have some fixed matching $B$ of $b$ many edges in the graph $K_{a, a}$. Then by inclusion-exclusion the number of perfect matchings that do not have any edges from $B$ is
\[
h(a, b) := \sum_{w=0}^b (-1)^w \binom{b}{w} (a-w)!.
\]

Note that we always have $h(a, b) \le a!$. We will now observe that, roughly speaking, $h(a,b)\approx \frac{a!}{e}$ whenever $b \approx a \rightarrow \infty$. More formally we have the following

\begin{fact}\label{fact:hest}
    Suppose $a-a^{1/10} \le b \le a$. Then we have
    \[
    h(a, b) = \rbrac{1 + O(a^{-4/5})} \frac{a!}{e}
    \]
    as $a \rightarrow \infty$
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
We have \begin{align}\label{eqn:h}
     h(a,b)=\sum_{0 \le w \le b} (-1)^w \binom{b}{w} (a-w)!= a! \sum_{0 \le w \le b}  \frac{(-1)^w}{w!}\frac{(b)_w}{(a)_w}.
 \end{align}
Now, for $0 \le w \le a^{1/10}$ we have by Fact \ref{fact:edgeprob} that
\begin{align*}
    \frac{(b)_w}{(a)_w} &= \rbrac{\frac ba}^w \exp\cbrac{ \frac{w^2}{2} \rbrac{\frac1a - \frac1b} + O\rbrac{\frac{w^3}{b^2} + \frac wb}}\\
    &= \rbrac{1 + O\rbrac{a^{-9/10}}}^{O\rbrac{a^{1/10}}} \exp \cbrac{O(a^{-4/5}} = 1 + O(a^{-4/5}).
\end{align*}
Meanwhile for $w \ge a^{1/10}$ we have that the corresponding term in line \eqref{eqn:h} has absolute value
\begin{align*}
    \frac{1}{w!}\frac{(b)_w}{(a)_w} \le \frac{1}{(a^{1/10})!} = \exp\cbrac{ - \Omega\rbrac{a^{1/10} \log a}}
\end{align*}
by Stirling's approximation. Thus, the sum of all such terms in line \eqref{eqn:h} is at most
\[
b \exp\cbrac{ - \Omega\rbrac{a^{1/10} \log a}} = O(a^{-4/5})
\]
(this bound is quite comfortable). By the Alternating Series Test we have that
\[
\sum_{0 \le w \le a^{1/10}} \frac{(-1)^w}{w!} = \frac 1e + O\rbrac{\frac{1}{(a^{1/10})!}}  = \frac 1e + O(a^{-4/5}).
\]
 Breaking up the sum for $h(a, b)$ we have \begin{align*}
     h(a, b) &= a! \sbrac{\sum_{0 \le w \le a^{1/10}}  \frac{(-1)^w}{w!}\frac{(b)_w}{(a)_w}  + \sum_{a^{1/10}< w \le b}  \frac{(-1)^w}{w!}\frac{(b)_w}{(a)_w}} \\
     &= a! \sbrac{\rbrac{1 + O(a^{-4/5})} \sum_{0 \le w \le a^{1/10}} \frac{(-1)^w}{w!}  +  O(a^{-4/5}) } \\
     &= \rbrac{1 + O(a^{-4/5})} \frac{a!}{e}.
 \end{align*}
\end{proof}

 We find that
 \begin{align}
     \mathbb{E}[X^2] &= \sum_{D,D' \in \mc{D}}\mathbb{P}[D,D'\subseteq G_{k \l}]=(k!)^\l\sum_{D' \in \mc{D}}\mathbb{P}[D_0,D'\subseteq M]\nonumber\\
     &=(k!)^\l\sum_{b=0}^{k\l}\left[\frac{\binom{k^2\l-(2k \l-b)}{m-(2k \l-b)} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} }\sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l\binom{k}{b_c}h(k-b_c, k-b_c) \right].\label{eqn:EX2}
 \end{align}
 where in the inner sum, $S_b$ is the set of $\l$-dimensional vectors $\vec{b} = (b_1, \ldots b_\l)$ whose components are nonnegative integers summing to $b$.

 By \ref{fact:edgeprob}, if $b \le k^{1/10}$ then we have
\begin{align*}
   \frac{\binom{k^2\l-(2k \l-b)}{m-(2k \l-b)} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} } &= p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{\frac{(2k\l-b)^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{k^2\ell}-\frac{1}{m}\right)+O\left(\frac{k^3}{m^2}+\frac{k}{m}\right) \right\}  \\
   & = \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-9/10})} p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{2\ell \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\}
\end{align*}
and by Fact \ref{fact:hest} we have
$ h(k-b_c, k-b_c) =\rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})} \frac{(k-b_c)!}{e}$. Therefore the term corresponding to $b$ in \eqref{eqn:EX2} is
 \begin{align*}
      \frac{\binom{k^2\l-(2k \l-b)}{m-(2k \l-b)} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} }\sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l & \binom{k}{b_c}h(k-b_c, k-b_c)\\
      &= \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})}p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{2\ell \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\} \sum_{\vec{b}\in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l\binom{k}{b_c} \frac{(k-b_c)!}{e}  \\
      &= \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})}(k!)^{\l} p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{2\ell \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) - \l \right\} \sum_{\vec{b}\in S_b} \prod_{c=1}^\l \frac{1}{b_c!} \\
      &=\rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})}(k!)^{\l} p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{\ell \left(1-\frac{2}{p}\right)  \right\}  \frac{\l^b}{b!}
 \end{align*}
 where on the last line we used the multinomial formula. Meanwhile if $b \ge k^{1/10}$ then the term corresponding to $b$ in \eqref{eqn:EX2} is
  \begin{align*}
      \frac{\binom{k^2\l-(2k \l-b)}{m-(2k \l-b)} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} }\sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l & \binom{k}{b_c}h(k-b_c, k-b_c) \le   \sum_{\vec{b}\in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l\binom{k}{b_c} (k-b_c)!\\
      & = (k!)^\l  \frac{\l^b}{b!} = (k!)^\l \cdot \exp\cbrac{-\Omega\rbrac{k^{1/10} \log k}}
 \end{align*}
 and so the sum of all terms in \eqref{eqn:EX2} with $b \ge k^{1/10}$ is at most
 \[
 k\l \cdot (k!)^\l \cdot \exp\cbrac{-\Omega\rbrac{k^{1/10} \log k}} = (k!)^\l \cdot O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}.
 \]
 Therefore
  \begin{align*}
     \mathbb{E}[X^2] &=(k!)^\l\sum_{b=0}^{k\l}\left[\frac{\binom{k^2\l-(2k \l-b)}{m-(2k \l-b)} }{\binom{k^2\l}{m} }\sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b}\prod_{c=1}^\l\binom{k}{b_c}h(k-b_c, k-b_c) \right]\\
     &= (k!)^\l \sbrac{\sum_{0 \le b \le k^{1/10} } \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})}(k!)^{\l} p^{2k\ell-b}\exp\left\{\ell \left(1-\frac{2}{p}\right)  \right\}  \frac{\l^b}{b!} + (k!)^\l \cdot   O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}}\\
     & = \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})} (k!)^{2\l}p^{2k\l}\exp\left\{\ell \left(1-\frac{2}{p}\right)  \right\} \sum_{0 \le b \le k^{1/10} }  p^{-b}  \frac{\l^b}{b!}\\
     & = \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})} (k!)^{2\l}p^{2k\l}\exp\left\{\ell \left(1-\frac{2}{p}\right)  \right\}\cdot \rbrac{\exp\left\{\frac{\l}{p}  \right\} + O(k^{-4/5}) } \\
      & = \rbrac{1 + O(k^{-4/5})} (k!)^{2\l}p^{2k\l}\exp\left\{\ell \left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)  \right\} \\
      & \sim \mathbb{E}[X]^2
 \end{align*}

\vspace{1cm}
 For $\mathbb{E}[Y^2]$ we find an exact expression to be cumbersome, but the following upper bound will suffice:
 \begin{align}
     \mathbb{E}[Y^2] &\le  \sum_{\substack{0 \le i, j \le k\\ 0 \le b \le k \l \\ \vec{b} \in S_b}}  \frac{\binom{k^2\ell-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)}{m-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)} }{\binom{k^2\ell}{m} } \left(\frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\ell \prod_{c=1}^\ell \binom{k-i}{b_c}\binom{k-b_c}{j} h(k-j-b_c, k-i-b_c-2j) \label{eqn:EYsquared}

 \end{align}
The term corresponding to a tuple $(i, j, b, \vec{b})$ above is an upper bound on the contribution to $\mathbb{E}[Y^2]$ due to pairs of permutations $(P, P')$ such that $P$ fixes $i$ vertices per part, $P'$ fixes $j$ vertices per part, and $P$ and $P'$ share a total of $b$ edges where $b_c$ of the shared edges are between $V_c$ and part $V_{c+1}$. The first factor is the edge probability, and the next factor is the number of choices for $P$. The next factor is an upper bound on the number of choices for $P'$. Indeed, we choose the edges of $P'$ from $V_c$ to  $V_{c+1}$ by first choosing $b_c$ edges of $P$ to be shared, then we choose $j$ vertices in $V_c$ to be fixed by $P'$, and finally we choose a matching between the remaining vertices (the vertices of $V_c \cup V_{c+1}$ that are not fixed by $P'$ and are not endpoints of the $b_c$ shared edges already chosen). This matching must avoid any edges of $P$, and the vertices to be matched induce at least $k-i-b_c-2j$ edges of $P$, explaining the last factor above.

We will now estimate the significant terms in \eqref{eqn:EYsquared}. Assume $i, j, b \le k^{1/10}$. Then by Fact
\ref{fact:edgeprob} \begin{align*}
     \frac{\binom{k^2\ell-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)}{m-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)} }{\binom{k^2\ell}{m} } &= p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}\exp\left\{\frac{(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)^2}{2k^2\l}\rbrac{1-\frac{1}{p}} +O\rbrac{\frac{1}{k}}\right\} \\
     &= p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}\exp\left\{2\ell\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) +O\rbrac{k^{-9/10}}\right\}.
 \end{align*}
 Next we estimate
 \begin{align*}
h(k-j-b_c, k-i-b_c-2j) = \rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} \frac{(k-j-b_c)!}{e}
 \end{align*}
 by Fact \ref{fact:hest}. So the product in \eqref{eqn:EYsquared} is
 \begin{align}
     \prod_{c=1}^\ell \binom{k-i}{b_c}\binom{k-b_c}{j} h(k-j-b_c, k-i-b_c-2j) & = \rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} \prod_{c=1}^\ell \frac{(k-i)_{b_c}}{b_c!}\frac{(k-b_c)_j}{j!} \frac{(k-j-b_c)!}{e} \nonumber \\
     & \le  \rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}}\rbrac{\frac{k!}{ej!}}^\l \prod_{c=1}^\ell \frac{1}{b_c!}.\label{eqn:prodest1}
 \end{align}

 The sum of terms in \eqref{eqn:EYsquared} corresponding to small $i, j, b$ is at most
  \begin{align}
     &\rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} \sum_{\substack{0 \le i, j, b \le k^{1/10} \\ \vec{b} \in S_b}} p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}\exp\left\{2\ell\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\}. \left(\frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\ell \rbrac{\frac{k!}{ej!}}^\l \prod_{c=1}^\ell \frac{1}{b_c!}\nonumber \\
     & =\rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} \exp\left\{\ell\left(1-\frac{2}{p}\right) \right\}\sum_{0 \le i, j, b \le k^{1/10}} p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b} \left(\frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\ell \rbrac{\frac{k!}{j!}}^\l \frac{\l^b}{b!}\nonumber \\
     & \le \rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} (k!)^{2\l} p^{2k\l}\exp\left\{\ell\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\}\sum_{0 \le i, j , b} \frac{p^{-i\ell} }{(i!)^\l} \cdot  \frac{p^{-j\ell} }{(j!)^\l} \cdot  \frac{(\l/p)^b}{b!} \nonumber\\
     &=  \rbrac{1+O\rbrac{k^{-4/5}}} (k!)^{2\l} p^{2k\l}\exp\left\{\ell\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right) \right\} f_\l\rbrac{\frac1p}^2 \nonumber\\
     &\sim \mathbb{E}[Y]^2 \nonumber
 \end{align}
 where on the second-to-last line we have used
 \[
 \sum_{0 \le i} \frac{p^{-i\ell} }{(i!)^\l} = f_\l\rbrac{\frac1p}, \qquad \qquad \sum_{0 \le b }  \frac{(\l/p)^b}{b!} =  \exp\cbrac{\frac {\l}{p}}.
 \]

 It remains to show that the sum of all other terms (i.e. terms where $i, j,$ or $b$ is at least $k^{1/10}$) is negligible compared to $\mathbb{E}[Y]^2$, which is of order $(k!)^{2\l} p^{2k\l}$. Note that by Fact
\ref{fact:edgeprob} \begin{align*}
     \frac{\binom{k^2\ell-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)}{m-(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)} }{\binom{k^2\ell}{m} } &= p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}\exp\left\{\frac{(2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b)^2}{2k^2\l}\rbrac{1-\frac{1}{p}} +O\rbrac{\frac{1}{k}}\right\} \\
     &= O\rbrac{p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}}.
 \end{align*}
 Thus, the sum (over $\vec{b}$) of terms corresponding to a fixed triple $(i, j, b)$ in line \eqref{eqn:EYsquared} big-O of
 \begin{align*}
      & p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b}  \sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b} \left(\frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\ell \prod_{c=1}^\ell \binom{k-i}{b_c}\binom{k-b_c}{j} (k-j-b_c)! \nonumber\\
      & \le p^{2k\ell-(i+j)\ell-b} \left(\frac{k!}{i!}\right)^\ell \left(\frac{k!}{j!}\right)^\ell \sum_{\vec{b} \in S_b}  \prod_{c=1}^\ell \frac{1}{b_c!} \nonumber\\
      & =\rbrac{(k!)^{2\l} p^{2k\l} } \cdot \rbrac{ \frac{\l^b}{p^{(i+j)\ell+b}(i!)^\ell(j!)^\l b!} }.
 \end{align*}
It is easy to see that if $i, j$ or $b$ is at least $k^{1/10}$ then the second factor above is $\exp\cbrac{-\Omega\rbrac{k^{1/10} \log k}}$. Since the number of triples $(i, j, b)$ is polynomial in $k$, the sum of all such terms (i.e. where $i, j$ or $b$ is at least $k^{1/10}$) is $o\rbrac{(k!)^{2\l} p^{2k\l} }$ which is a negligible contribution to $\mathbb{E}[Y^2]$. Therefore we have $\mathbb{E}[Y^2]\sim \mathbb{E}[Y]^2.$

\section{Remarks and Open Problems}

The reader should note that we did not use a ``binomial" random construction (e.g. keep each edge of $D_{k, \ell}$ with probability $p$ independently) because such a model lacks the concentration we need here. Indeed, for example Janson (\cite{J94}) showed that the number of perfect matchings in $G(n, p)$ is not concentrated even when it is quite large, while the number of perfect matchings of $G(n, m)$ is concentrated. We tried to use a binomial random construction and found that the second moments were too large, which in light of Janson's result makes sense (for example derangements in our graph are just a union of several perfect matchings on bipartite graphs).

There are still interesting open problems in \cite{BDHHL}. In particular it is still open whether $S$, the set of possible ratios $(d/p)_G$, is equal to $\mathbb{Q} \cap [0, 1/2]$. Here we would like to pose another open problem that is mostly unrelated to our result. In particular, we ask about stability for digraphs whose ratio $(d/p)_G$ is close to $1/2$: do such digraphs have to resemble the blow-up of a directed graph?

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}


Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz and Hölder inequalities

Abstract: We present some identities related to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in complex inner product spaces. A new proof of the basic result on the subject of Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities is derived using these identities. Also, an analogous version of this result is given for Strengthened Hölder inequalities.

\section{Introduction}

In \cite{A}, the parallelogram identity
in a {\em real} inner product space, is rewritten in
Cauchy-Schwarz form
(with the deviation from equality given as a function of the
angular distance  between
vectors)
thereby providing another proof
of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the real case. The
first section of this note complements this result by
presenting related identities for  complex
inner product spaces, and thus
a proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality  in the complex case.

Of course, using angular distances
is equivalent to using angles. An advantage of the angular
distance is  that it makes sense in arbitrary normed spaces, in
addition to being simpler than the notion of angle. And in some
cases it may also be easier to compute. Angular distances
are used in Section 2
to give a proof of the basic theorem in the subject of
Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities (Theorem \ref{scs} below).
We also point out that the result is valid not just for vector
subspaces, but also for cones. Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities
are fundamental in the proofs of convergence of iterative, finite element methods in numerical
analysis, cf. for instance \cite{EiVa}. They have also been considered
in the context of wavelets, cf. for example \cite{DR}, \cite{DRRo1}, \cite{DRRo2}.

Finally, Section 3 presents a variant, for cones and in the H\"older case
when $1 < p < \infty$, of the basic theorem on
Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities, cf. Theorem \ref{sh}.

\section{Identities related to the  Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in complex
inner product spaces}

It is noted in \cite{A} that
in a {\em real} inner product space, the parallelogram identity
\begin{equation}\label{par}
\|x + y\|^2 + \|x-y\|^2 = 2 \|x\|^2 + 2\|y\|^2
\end{equation}
provides
 the following stability version of
 the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, valid for non-zero vectors
 $x$ and $y$:
\begin{equation}\label{bonhilb}
 (x, y)  =
\|x\|\|y\|\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right).
\end{equation}
Basically, this identity says that the size of $(x,y)$
is determined by the angular distance $\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|$ between $x$ and $y$.
In particular, $(x, y)  \le
\|x\|\|y\|$, with equality precisely when the angular distance is zero.

In this section we present some complex variants of this identity, involving
$(x,y)$ and also $|(x,y)|$; as a byproduct,
  the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the complex case is obtained.  Since different conventions
appear in the literature, we
point out that in this paper $(x,y)$ is taken to be linear in the first argument and
conjugate linear in the second.

We systematically replace in the proofs nonzero vectors
$x$ and $y$ by unit vectors $u = x/\|x\|$ and $v = y/\|y\|$.

\begin{theorem}\label{l1}
For all nonzero vectors $x$ and $y$ in
a complex inner product space, we have
\begin{equation}\label{re}
\operatorname{Re} (x, y)  =
\|x\|\|y\|\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)
\end{equation}
  and
\begin{equation}\label{im}
\operatorname{Im} (x, y)  =
\|x\|\|y\|\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{i y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $\|u\| =\|v\| = 1$. From (\ref{par}) we obtain
 \begin{equation*}
4 - \|u-v\|^2
 =
 \|u + v\|^2
 =
 2 + (u,v) + (v, u)
  =
 2 + (u,v) + \overline{(u, v)}
 =
 2 + 2 \operatorname{Re} (u,v).
 \end{equation*}
 Thus,
$
\operatorname{Re} (u,v) = 1 - \frac12
\left\|u - v \right\|^2.
$
 The same argument, applied to $\|u + i v\|^2$, yields
$
\operatorname{Im} (u,v) = 1 - \frac12
\left\|u - i v \right\|^2.
$
\end{proof}

Writing $(x,y) = \operatorname{Re} (x,y)+ i \operatorname{Im} (x,y)$
we obtain the following

\begin{corollary}\label{complexCauchy}
For all nonzero vectors $x$ and $y$ in
a complex inner product space, we have
\begin{equation}\label{bonchilb1}
(x, y)
  =
\|x\|\|y\|\left(\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)
+
i \left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{i y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)\right).
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{bonchilb2}
|(x, y)|
  =
\|x\|\|y\|\sqrt{\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)^2
+
\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{x}{\|x\|}-\frac{i y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}

Next we find some shorter expressions for $|(x,y)|$.
Let $\operatorname{Arg} z$ denote the principal argument of $z\in \mathbb{C}$, $z \ne 0$. That
is, $0\le \operatorname{Arg} z < 2\pi$, and in polar coordinates, $z= e^{i\operatorname{Arg} z} r$.  We choose the principal argument for definiteness;
any other argument will do equally well.

\begin{theorem}   Let $x$ and $y$
be nonzero vectors in
a complex inner product space. Then, for every $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{stabCauchy}
\|x\|\|y\|\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{e^{i\alpha}x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right)
\le
|(x,y)|
 =
\|x\|\|y\|\left(1 - \frac12
\left\|\frac{e^{ - i \operatorname{Arg} (x,y)} x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|^2\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} By a normalization, it is enough to consider
unit vectors $u$ and $v$.
 Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary real number, and set
 $t
 = \operatorname{Arg} (u,v)$, so
 $(u,v) = e^{it} r$ in polar form.
Using (\ref{re}) we obtain
$$ 1 - \frac12
\left\|e^{i\alpha} u - v \right\|^2
= \operatorname{Re} (e^{i\alpha} u,v)
\le
|(e^{i\alpha} u,v)|
$$
$$
 =
|(u,v)| = r = (e^{-it} u,v) =
\operatorname{Re} (e^{-it} u,v) = 1 - \frac12
\left\|e^{-it} u - v \right\|^2.
$$
\end{proof}

The preceding result can be regarded as a variational expression for
$|(x,y)|$, since it shows that this quantity can be obtained by
maximizing the left hand side of (\ref{stabCauchy}) over $\alpha$, or,
in other words, by minimizing $\left\|\frac{e^{i\alpha}x}{\|x\|}-\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right\|$ over $\alpha$.

\begin{corollary} Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.  For all vectors $x$ and $y$ in
a complex inner product space, we have  $|(x,y)| \le
\left\|x\right\| \|y\|$, with equality if and only if the vectors
are linearly dependent.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof} Of course, if one of the vectors $x$, $y$ is zero, the result
is trivial, so suppose otherwise and normalize, writing $u =  x/\|x\|$ and
$v = y/\|y\|$. From (\ref{stabCauchy}) we obtain,
first,
$|(u,v)| \le
1$, second, $e^{-i\operatorname{Arg} (u,v)} u = v $
 if $|(u,v)| =  1$, so equality implies linear dependency, and third,
 $|(u,v)| =  1$  if $e^{i\alpha} u = v$ for some $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}$, so linear dependency implies equality.
 \end{proof}

\section{Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities}

Such inequalities, of the form $|(x,y)| \le
\gamma \left\|x\right\| \|y\|$ for some fixed $\gamma \in [0,1)$, are
fundamental in the proofs of convergence of iterative, finite element methods in numerical
analysis. The basic result in the subject is the following theorem (see Theorem 2.1 and Remark 2.3 of \cite{EiVa}).

\begin{theorem}\label{scs}   Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, let $F\subset H$ be a closed subspace,
and let $V\subset H$ be a finite dimensional subspace. If $F\cap V = \{0\}$, then there exists a constant
$\gamma = \gamma (V, F)\in [0,1)$
such that for every $x\in V$ and every $y\in F$,
$$
|(x,y)| \le
\gamma \left\|x\right\| \|y\|.
$$
\end{theorem}

There are, at least, two natural notions of angle between subspaces. To
see this, consider a pair of 2 dimensional
subspaces $V$ and $W$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, in general position. They intersect
in a line $L$, so we may consider that they are parallel in the
direction of the subspace $L$, and thus the angle between them is
zero. This is the notion of angle relevant to the subject of
Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities.

Alternatively, we may disregard the common subspace $L$, and (in this
particular example) determine the angle between subspaces by choosing the minimal
angle between their unit normals. Note however that
the two notions of angle suggested by the preceding example
coincide when the intersection of subspaces
is $\{0\}$ (cf. \cite{De} for more information on angles between
subspaces).

From the perspective of angles, or equivalently,  angular distances, what Theorem \ref{scs} states is the intuitively plausible
assertion  that the angular distance between
$V$ and $F$ is strictly positive
provided $F$ is  closed,
 $V$ is finite dimensional, and $F\cap V = \{0\}$.  Finite dimensionality
 of one of the subspaces is crucial, though: It is known that if both
$V$ and $F$ are infinite dimensional, the angular distance between
them can be zero, even if both subspaces are closed.

Define the angular distance between $V$ and $F$ as
\begin{equation} \label{angdist}
\kappa(V, F) := \inf\{\|v - w\|: v\in V, w\in F, \mbox{ and  } \|v\| = \|w\|=1\}.
\end{equation}

The proof (by contradiction) of Theorem  \ref{scs} presented
in \cite{EiVa} is not difficult, but deals only with the case where
both $V$ and $F$ are finite dimensional. And it is certainly not as
simple as
the following

\begin{proof} If either $V=\{0\}$ or $F=\{0\}$ there is
nothing to show, so assume otherwise.
Let $S(V)$ be the unit sphere of the finite dimensional subspace $V$, and let $v\in S$. Denote
by $f(v)$ the distance from $v$ to the unit sphere $S(F)$ of $F$. Then
$f(v) > 0$ since $F$ is closed and $v\notin F$. Thus, $f$ achieves
a minimum value $\kappa > 0$ over the compact set $S(V)$. By the right hand side of formula (\ref{stabCauchy}),  for
every $x\in V\setminus \{0\}$ and every $y\in F\setminus \{0\}$ we have $|(x,y)| \le
(1 - \kappa^2/2) \left\|x\right\| \|y\|$.
\end{proof}

In concrete applications of the Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, a good deal of effort goes into estimating the size of $\gamma = \cos \theta$, where
$\theta$ is the angle between  subspaces appearing in the discretization
schemes. Since we also have
$\gamma = 1 - \kappa^2/2$, this equality can provide an alternative way of
estimating $\gamma$, via the angular distance $\kappa$ rather than the angle.

Next we state a natural extension of Theorem \ref{scs}, to which the
same proof applies (so we will not repeat it). Consider two nonzero vectors
$u$, $v$ in a real inner product space $E$, and let $S$ the unit circumference in the plane spanned by these vectors. The angle between them is just the
length of the smallest arc of $S$ determined by $u/\|u\|$ and $v/\|v\|$. So to speak about angles, or angular
distances, we only need to be able to multiply nonzero vectors $x$ by  positive
scalars $\lambda = 1/\|x\|$. This suggests that the natural setting
for Theorem \ref{scs} is that of cones, rather than vector subspaces.
Recall that $C$ is a {\em cone} in a vector space over a field containing
the real numbers  if for every $x\in C$ and every
$\lambda > 0$ we have $\lambda x\in C$. In particular, every vector
subspace is a cone. If $C_1$ and $C_2$ are  cones in a
Hilbert space,  the angular distance between them can be defined
exactly as before:
\begin{equation} \label{angdistc}
\kappa(C_1, C_2) := \inf\{\|v - w\|: v\in C_1, w\in C_2, \mbox{ and  } \|v\| = \|w\|=1\}.
\end{equation}

\begin{theorem}\label{scsc}   Let $H$ be a Hilbert space with unit sphere
$S(H)$, and let $C_1, C_2\subset H$ be (topologically) closed cones, such that $C_1\cap S(H)$
is a norm compact set.  If $C_1\cap C_2 = \{0\}$, then there exists a constant
$\gamma = \gamma (C_1, C_2)\in [0,1)$
such that for every $x\in C_1$ and every $y\in C_2$,
$$
|(x,y)| \le
\gamma \left\|x\right\| \|y\|.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{example} Let $H=\mathbb{R}^2$,
$C_1 =\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2: x= -y\}$ and $C_2 =\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2: x y\ge 0\}$, that is, $C_1$ is the one dimensional subspace with slope $-1$
and $C_2$ the union of the first and third quadrants. Here we can explicitly
see that $\gamma (C_1, C_2) = \cos (\pi/4) = 1/\sqrt2$.
However, if $C_2$ is extended to
a vector space $V$, then the condition $C_1\cap V = \{0\}$ no longer holds
and  $\gamma (C_1, V)  = 1$. So stating the result in terms of cones rather
than vector subspaces does cover new, nontrivial cases.
\end{example}

\section{A Strengthened H\"older inequality}

For $1 < p < \infty$, it is possible to give an $L^p-L^q$ version of
the Strengthened Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Here $q:= p/(p - 1)$ denotes the
conjugate exponent of $p$. We want to find suitable conditions on
$C_1\subset L^p$ and $C_2\subset L^q$ so that
there exists a constant
$\gamma = \gamma (C_1, C_2)\in [0,1)$
with
$
\|fg\|_1 \le
\gamma \left\|f\right\|_p \|g\|_q
$
for every $f\in C_1$ and every $g\in C_2$. An obvious difference between
the H\"older and the Cauchy-Schwarz cases is that in the
pairing $(f, g): = \int f\overline{g}$, the functions $f$ and $g$ belong to different
spaces (unless $p = q =2$). This means that the hypothesis $C_1\cap C_2 = \{0\}$ needs to be modified. A second obvious difference is that
H\"older's inequality deals actually with $|f|$ and $|g|$ rather
than with $f$ and $g$. So when finding angular distances we will
also deal with $|f|$ and $|g|$. Note that $f\in C_i$ does not necessarily
imply that $|f|\in C_i$ (consider, for instance, the second quadrant in $\mathbb{R}^2$).

We make standard nontriviality assumptions
on measure spaces $(X, \mathcal{A}, \mu)$: $X$ contains at least one point
and the (positive) measure $\mu$ is not identically zero. We write
$L^p$ rather than $L^p (X, \mathcal{A}, \mu)$.

To compare cones in different $L^p$ spaces, we map them into $L^2$ via
the Mazur map. Let us write $\operatorname{ sign } z = e^{i\theta}$ when
$z = r e^{i\theta} \ne 0$, and $\operatorname{ sign } 0 = 1$ (so
$|\operatorname{ sign } z| = 1$ always).
The Mazur map
 $\psi_{r,s} : L^r\to L^s$ is defined first on the
unit sphere $S (L^r)$ by $\psi_{r,s} (f) := |f|^{r/s} \operatorname{ sign }f$, and then extended
to the rest of $L^r$ by homogeneity (cf. \cite{BeLi}, pp. 197--199 for additional
information on the Mazur map). More precisely,
$$
\psi_{r,s} (f) := \|f\|_r \psi_{r,s} (f/\|f\|_r) = \|f\|_r^{1 - r/s} |f|^{r/s} \operatorname{ sign }f.
$$
By definition, if $\lambda > 0$ then $\psi_{r,s} (\lambda f) =
\lambda \psi_{r,s} (f)$. This entails that if $C\subset L^r$ is a
cone, then $\psi_{r,s} (C)\subset L^s$ is a cone. Given a subset
$A\subset L^r$, we denote by $|A|$ the set $|A| :=\{|f|: f\in A\}$.
Observe that if $A$ is a cone then so is $|A|$.

\begin{theorem}\label{sh} Let $1 < p < \infty$ and denote by $q:= p/(p - 1)$  its
conjugate exponent. Let
$C_1\subset L^p$ and $C_2\subset L^q$ be cones, let $S(L^p)$
stand for the unit sphere of $L^p$
and let $\overline{|C_1|}$  and $\overline{|C_2|}$ denote the topological
closures of $|C_1|$  and $|C_2|$. If
 $\overline{|C_1|}\cap S(L^p)$ is norm compact, and
 $\psi_{p,2} (\overline{|C_1|}) \cap \psi_{q,2} (\overline{|C_2|}) = \{0\}$, then
  there exists a constant
$\gamma = \gamma (C_1, C_2)\in [0,1)$
such that for every $f\in C_1$ and every $g\in C_2$,
\begin{equation}\label{sth}
\|fg\|_1 \le
\gamma \left\|f\right\|_p \|g\|_q.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

We use  the part of \cite[Theorem 2.2]{A} given next.

\begin{theorem}\label{betterhold}  Let $1 < p < \infty$, let $q = p/(p-1)$ be its
conjugate exponent, and let $M = \max\{p, q\}$.
If $f\in L^p $, $g\in L^q$, and $\|f\|_p, \|g\|_q > 0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{bonhold}
\|fg\|_1 \le  \|f\|_p\|g\|_q \left(1 - \frac1M
\left\|\frac{|f|^{p/2}}{\|f\|_p^{p/2}}-\frac{|g|^{q/2}}{\|g\|_q^{q/2}}\right\|_2^2\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

A different proof of inequality (\ref{bonhold})  (with the slightly weaker
constant $M = p + q$, but sufficient for the purposes of this note) can be found in \cite{A2}. Next we prove Theorem \ref{sh}.

\begin{proof} If either $C_1=\{0\}$ or $C_2=\{0\}$ there is
nothing to show, so assume otherwise. Note that since $|C_1|$ and
$|C_2|$ are cones, the same happens with their topological closures.
The cones $\psi_{p,2} (\overline{|C_1|})$ and $\psi_{q,2} (\overline{|C_2|})$
are also closed, as the following argument shows:
The Mazur maps $\psi_{r,s}$ are uniform homeomorphisms
between closed balls, and also between spheres, of any fixed (bounded) radius  (cf.
\cite[Proposition 9.2, p. 198]{BeLi}, and the paragraph before the
said proposition). In particular, if $\{f_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence
in $\psi_{q,2} (\overline{|C_2|})$ (for instance) then it is a bounded
sequence in $L^2$,
so $\psi_{q,2}^{-1} = \psi_{2,q}$ maps it to a Cauchy sequence in
$\overline{|C_2|}$, with limit, say, $h$. Then $\lim_n f_n = \psi_{q,2} (h)
\in \psi_{q,2} (\overline{|C_2|})$. Likewise,
$\psi_{p,2} (\overline{|C_1|})$ is closed.

The rest of the proof
proceeds as before. Let $v\in \psi_{p,2} (\overline{|C_1|})\cap S(L^2)$
and denote
by $F(v)$ the distance from $v$ to  $\psi_{q,2} (\overline{|C_2|})\cap S(L^2)$. Then
$F(v) > 0$, so $F$ achieves
a minimum value $\kappa > 0$ over the compact set $\psi_{p,2} (\overline{|C_1|})\cap S(L^2)$, and now (\ref{sth}) follows
from  (\ref{bonhold}).
\end{proof}

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)