AUTOMATED CONJECTURING VII: THE GRAPH BRAIN PROJECT & BIG MATHEMATICS
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.
Statement
independence_number(x)>= ceil(lovasz_theta(x))-girth(x)
Context
Candidate 7 of the open problems stated in "AUTOMATED CONJECTURING VII: THE GRAPH BRAIN PROJECT & BIG MATHEMATICS", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
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.
Interest
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
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.
NEW
Problem: Reconstructed statement: for every finite simple graph ,
where is independence number, is the usual Lovász theta number satisfying , and is girth. The conjecture text lists exactly these graph invariants. The counterexample below is connected and has a triangle, so it is unaffected by common connectedness or girth-convention ambiguities.
Result: The statement is false.
Let be the disjoint union of copies of , and let
be the join of with one new universal vertex.
Standard theta facts: , is additive on disjoint unions, and
Hence
Since , we have
Also, each has independence number , so
The universal vertex cannot be used together with any vertex of , hence
Finally, contains a triangle: the universal vertex together with any edge of a . Thus
Therefore the conjectured inequality gives
which is false. So this connected -vertex graph is a counterexample.
Citation: The theta facts used above are classical; see L. Lovász, “On the Shannon capacity of a graph,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 25 (1979), 1–7.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification KNOWN
PASS
The counterexample attacks the correct conjecture. For , the standard theta identities give , so . Also and , hence the conjectured bound would require , false. The graph is connected, and the cited theta facts are standard.
Novelty assessment
KNOWN
Classification rationale: The accepted solution gives a counterexample, but the exact conjecture was already publicly resolved negatively. Thus the resolution is not new, even if the 66-vertex construction is a different certificate.
Literature check: Searching the exact Graph Brain syntax and variants led to the project’s earlier issue #191, “Open Conjecture: alpha >= ceil(lovasz_theta) - girth.” In a comment dated Oct. 28, 2017, user a234 states: “The Paley graph of order 101 is a counterexample.” The issue is now closed.
Citation: math1um/objects-invariants-properties, Issue #191, “Open Conjecture: alpha >= ceil(lovasz_theta) - girth,” comment by a234, Oct. 28, 2017. https://github.com/math1um/objects-invariants-properties/issues/191#issuecomment-340132963
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 endorsementsNo 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
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.