ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

A NOTE ON GRAPHS WITH A PRESCRIBED ADJACENCY PROPERTY

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-note-on-graphs-with-a-prescribed-adjacency-propertyNumber Theorymath.NTmath.RTposed by W. Ananchuen, L. Caccettarecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

We conjecture that this is true for all q.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "A NOTE ON GRAPHS WITH A PRESCRIBED ADJACENCY PROPERTY", 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
    people
    Shengtong Zhang

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed conjecture (Remark 2): Let q1(mod4)q\equiv1\pmod4 be a prime power, k1k\ge1, and let GqG_q be the Paley graph on Fq\mathbb F_q. If

    q<(1+22k)2,q<\bigl(1+2\sqrt{2k}\bigr)^2,

    then GqG(1,2,k)G_q\notin \mathcal G(1,2,k); i.e. there exist distinct vertices a,b,ca,b,c such that fewer than kk vertices are adjacent to aa and nonadjacent to both b,cb,c.

    This is exactly the statement following the authors’ computer verification for q1009q\le1009.

    Result: The conjecture is false. Take

    q=55=3125,k=377.q=5^5=3125,\qquad k=377.

    Then

    3125<(1+2754)2=3017+4754,3125< (1+2\sqrt{754})^2=3017+4\sqrt{754},

    since 272<75427^2<754. But G3125G(1,2,377)G_{3125}\in\mathcal G(1,2,377).

    Proof. Let F=F3125F=\mathbb F_{3125} and let η\eta be its quadratic character. Since q1(mod4)q\equiv1\pmod4, η(1)=1\eta(-1)=1. By translation, it suffices to count, for distinct 0,b,c0,b,c,

    N(b,c)={x{0,b,c}:η(x)=1, η(xb)=η(xc)=1}.N(b,c)=|\{x\notin\{0,b,c\}:\eta(x)=1,\ \eta(x-b)=\eta(x-c)=-1\}|.

    Put

    S=xFη(x(xb)(xc)).S=\sum_{x\in F}\eta(x(x-b)(x-c)).

    For the nonsingular elliptic curve

    Eb,c:y2=x(xb)(xc),E_{b,c}: y^2=x(x-b)(x-c),

    we have #Eb,c(F)=q+1+S\#E_{b,c}(F)=q+1+S. Hasse gives

    S2q=505<112,|S|\le 2\sqrt q=50\sqrt5<112,

    so S111S\ge -111.

    Expanding the indicator product gives

    8N(b,c)=q+1+SR,8N(b,c)=q+1+S-R,

    where

    R=(1η(b))(1η(c))+(1+η(b))(1η(bc))+(1+η(c))(1η(bc)).R=(1-\eta(b))(1-\eta(c))+(1+\eta(b))(1-\eta(b-c))+(1+\eta(c))(1-\eta(b-c)).

    A direct check with signs ±1\pm1 gives R{0,4,8}R\in\{0,4,8\}. Hence

    8N(b,c)31261118=3007,8N(b,c)\ge3126-111-8=3007,

    so N(b,c)376N(b,c)\ge376.

    If N(b,c)=376N(b,c)=376, then

    3008=3126+SR,3008=3126+S-R,

    so S=R118S=R-118. Since S111S\ge-111 and R{0,4,8}R\in\{0,4,8\}, necessarily R=8R=8 and S=110S=-110. Then Eb,cE_{b,c} would have trace

    t=q+1#Eb,c(F)=S=110.t=q+1-\#E_{b,c}(F)=-S=110.

    But Waterhouse’s classification of elliptic-curve traces says that over Fpr\mathbb F_{p^r}, with p>3p>3 and rr odd, the only trace divisible by pp that can occur for a supersingular elliptic curve is 00; ordinary traces are not divisible by pp. Here p=5p=5, r=5r=5, and 1100110\ne0 is divisible by 55, impossible.

    Thus N(b,c)376N(b,c)\ne376, so N(b,c)377N(b,c)\ge377 for all distinct b,cb,c. Therefore G3125G(1,2,377)G_{3125}\in\mathcal G(1,2,377), contradicting the conjecture.

    Citation: Uses the conjecture from Ananchuen–Caccetta, “A note on graphs with a prescribed adjacency property,” Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 50 (1994), Remark 2. The trace obstruction uses W. C. Waterhouse, “Abelian varieties over finite fields,” Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 2 (1969), 521–560.

    Attachments

    • Curated solution (PDF) — not hosted yetpdf

    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 TYPE2

      PASS

      The counterexample attacks the correct Remark 2 statement. The character-sum count and correction term RR are valid, Hasse gives N376N\ge 376, and the only equality case would force an elliptic curve over F55\mathbb F_{5^5} with trace 110110, which is impossible by Waterhouse’s classification. Thus G3125G(1,2,377)G_{3125}\in\mathcal G(1,2,377) despite 3125<(1+2754)23125<(1+2\sqrt{754})^2.

      I found no prior comparable resolution/counterexample in the relevant literature/citation trail searched.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I could determine, and it refutes a published Ananchuen–Caccetta conjecture. The result is quite narrow and not top-journal level, but the counterexample is clean and uses a nontrivial elliptic-curve trace obstruction, so it plausibly merits a short standalone note in a standard combinatorics journal.

      Literature check: I checked the original paper, its Semantic Scholar citation trail, related papers on prescribed adjacency properties, existentially closed graphs, generalized Paley graphs, and covering arrays, plus targeted searches for “3125”, “377”, “Paley graph”, “P(1,2,k)”, “G(1,2,k)”, and the threshold formula. I found the original conjecture and later related work, but no prior counterexample or stronger statement implying this one. The direct citations to the Ananchuen–Caccetta note appear to concern generalized Paley graphs, n-e.c. graphs, covering arrays, and surveys, not this quantitative P(1,2,k)P(1,2,k) threshold.

      Citation: W. Ananchuen and L. Caccetta, “A note on graphs with a prescribed adjacency property,” Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 50/51 (1994/1995), 5–15, Remark 2. Relevant surrounding literature includes their “On the adjacency properties of Paley graphs,” Networks 23 (1993), 227–236, and W. Ananchuen, “On the adjacency properties of generalized Paley graphs,” Australas. J. Combin. 24 (2001), 129–147.

      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.