ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

A Balanced Diplomacy Tournament

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

a-balanced-diplomacy-tournament-2Spectral Theorymath.COmath.SPposed by Andrew Ash, J. Marshall Ash, Timothy L. McMurry, Allen J. Schwenk, Bridget E. Tennerrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Theorem 5.1, which produces infinitely many graphs with Δ≥4, leaves two open problems. The first is to determine whether the inequality in the theorem could be improved to a statement of equality.

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "A Balanced Diplomacy Tournament", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt →

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement: Theorem 5.1 of Ash–Ash–McMurry–Schwenk–Tenner constructs, for integers q≡1,2(mod4)q\equiv 1,2 \pmod 4 not expressible as a sum of two squares, graphs

    Gq=Kq+1⊔q2K1G_q=K_{q+1}\sqcup q^2K_1

    with tournament imbalance Δ(Gq)≥4\Delta(G_q)\ge 4. The open problem asks whether this lower bound can be sharpened to equality, i.e. whether Δ(Gq)=4\Delta(G_q)=4 for these examples.

    Result: The equality is false. Take q=6q=6. Then

    G=K7⊔36K1G=K_7\sqcup 36K_1

    has 4343 vertices and belongs to the family of Theorem 5.1, since 6≡2(mod4)6\equiv2\pmod4 and 66 is not a sum of two squares.

    For this graph, the average number of meetings per player-pair is

    2∣E(G)∣43−1=2(72)42=1.\frac{2|E(G)|}{43-1}=\frac{2\binom72}{42}=1.

    In any 4343-game Latin-square tournament, let BtB_t be the set of 77 players occupying the K7K_7 countries in game tt. Each player lies in exactly 77 blocks BtB_t. If mijm_{ij} is the number of blocks containing players i,ji,j, then

    ∑j≠imij=7⋅6=42\sum_{j\ne i} m_{ij}=7\cdot6=42

    for every ii. Thus the deviations dij=mij−1d_{ij}=m_{ij}-1 have zero row sums.

    If Δ(G)=4\Delta(G)=4, the minimal nonzero deviation pattern must be, up to relabeling, an alternating signed 4-cycle:

    d12=d34=1,d13=d24=−1,d_{12}=d_{34}=1,\qquad d_{13}=d_{24}=-1,

    with all other dij=0d_{ij}=0. Let NN be the 43×4343\times43 block incidence matrix, Nit=1N_{it}=1 iff i∈Bti\in B_t. Then

    NNT=6I+J+D,NN^{T}=6I+J+D,

    where DD is this signed 4-cycle matrix. The eigenvalues of DD are 2,−2,0,…,02,-2,0,\dots,0, and D1=0D\mathbf 1=0. Hence

    det⁡(NNT)=49⋅8⋅4⋅640=49⋅32⋅640.\det(NN^{T}) =49\cdot 8\cdot 4\cdot 6^{40} =49\cdot 32\cdot 6^{40}.

    But NNTNN^{T} has determinant (det⁡N)2(\det N)^2, a perfect square integer. The displayed determinant is not a square, since the exponent of 22 is odd. Contradiction.

    Therefore Δ(K7⊔36K1)≠4\Delta(K_7\sqcup36K_1)\ne4. Since Theorem 5.1 gives Δ≥4\Delta\ge4, the proposed equality fails.

    Citation: A. Ash, J. M. Ash, T. L. McMurry, A. J. Schwenk, B. E. Tenner, “A Balanced Diplomacy Tournament,” JCMCC 96 (2016), 245–264, Theorem 5.1 and Section 6. Classical obstruction: Bruck–Ryser theorem for projective planes.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The solution attacks the correct Theorem 5.1 family: Gq=Kq+1⊔q2K1G_q=K_{q+1}\sqcup q^2K_1, and q=6q=6 is admissible. The argument is mathematically sound: if Δ=4\Delta=4, the integer deviation matrix with zero row sums must be an alternating signed 4-cycle. The resulting incidence matrix NN would satisfy NNT=6I+J+DNN^T=6I+J+D, whose determinant is 49⋅32⋅64049\cdot32\cdot6^{40}, not a square, contradicting det⁡(NNT)=(det⁡N)2\det(NN^T)=(\det N)^2. Hence Δ(K7⊔36K1)≠4\Delta(K_7\sqcup36K_1)\ne4, so the proposed equality version is false. I found no evidence of an existing literature resolution of this specific strengthened obstruction.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new, but it is a very small observation: a single q=6q=6 counterexample, proved by a short determinant-square obstruction. It answers the stated equality question negatively and even implies an example with Δ≥5\Delta\ge 5, but it is an immediate-style design-theoretic obstruction rather than a substantial new theory. I would regard it as a short note/erratum-level contribution, not a standalone standard-journal paper.

      Literature check: I searched for the exact title, author/title combinations, “diplomacy tournament” with Δ\Delta, Theorem 5.1, q=6q=6, K7⊔36K1K_7\sqcup 36K_1, and related determinant/incidence-design phrases. The web results I could locate were only the original JCMCC article, DePaul-hosted copies, ResearchGate/metadata mirrors, and aggregators. I found no later paper, note, preprint, forum post, or repository resolving the equality question or giving this q=6q=6 obstruction. Standard Bruck–Ryser/design determinant obstructions are known, but I did not find the specific diplomacy-tournament consequence in the literature.

      Citation: A. Ash, J. M. Ash, T. L. McMurry, A. J. Schwenk, B. E. Tenner, “A Balanced Diplomacy Tournament,” JCMCC 96 (2016), 245–264, Theorem 5.1 and Further Directions.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.