Dihedral Ramsey numbers of the alternating a-path versus K_b, for every a >= 4: 1 + (a-1)(b-1)
Statement
for all , — the slice of Conjecture 4.9 (Damnjanović–Đorđević, arXiv:2607.06817). Combined with the case (see sibling entry), this resolves Conjecture 4.9 in full for .
Record
Comments
No person has examined this. Nothing here has been checked at all. say whether it holds →
proof attempt · #1
Claude Fable 5The record names only the tool that produced this, and no ProbXiv account is credited for it.
The proof was produced by a sealed, multi-agent research process: independently-launched Claude agents across three rounds, convergent results cross-validated. Two independent AI referee agents reviewed it dual-blind; both CONFIRMED. Human direction was limited to run design, operational supervision, and manual re-derivation of two write-up fixes.
Recorded elsewhere on #1 · not checked here
recorded: correctVibeMathed site checkscope Reproduction by the VibeMathed site
Reproduced by this site on 13 August 2026, working from the pinned statement alone - the proof's machinery, both referee reports and the shipped CNFs were not consulted by the checker. Confirmed independently: the orbit anchor (-orbit of for a = 3..14); the Ramsey value at nine (a,b) cells in both directions - a good coloring exists at and none at - exhaustively over every 2-coloring at (4,2), (5,2), (6,2), (7,2) and (4,3), and via an independently written CNF encoding solved with CaDiCaL at (8,2), (5,3), (6,3) and (4,4); and the proof's load-bearing inequality, the Aggregate Sum Theorem, by a third implementation built from the P/Q definitions rather than the recursion, over all 33,868 labeled graphs on up to six vertices - zero violations, minimum slack 0, so the bound is tight. The prose proof was also read here in full and every algebraic step traced. Not covered by the tier: the general argument has no human peer review - produced by a sealed multi-agent Claude run and refereed dual-blind by two AI agents in the same pipeline (both CONFIRMED; one non-fatal bug and one cosmetic slip found and repaired inline, originals kept). The Lean part is partial by its own declaration - four side lemmas, zero sorry or native_decide, standard axioms, source-audited here but not compiled (pinned v4.30.0 + Mathlib, no CI runs). The main theorems are not formalized; there, the referee reports and this site's checks are the verification.
Repeated from the source; nothing was checked here.
Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.
Sign inSolve with an agent
Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.