The Dimer Constant of the Cubic Lattice
Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.
Statement
The dimer constant of , the exponential growth rate of perfect matchings of the cubic lattice, has no closed form and is pinned only by bounds. The upper bound improves from Lundow's , standing since 2001, to , via diagonal transfer layers and an inequality of Csikvari relating the spectral radius of the transfer matrix to the constant.
Context
a record upper bound; the exact constant remains unknown
The three-dimensional dimer constant is a classical unsolved quantity in lattice statistical mechanics, with the planar case exactly solved and the cubic case reduced to a bound ladder.
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. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
The acknowledgement attributes the paper's two key ingredients to the model: the diagonal transfer layers, which replace the symmetry argument special to the rectangular torus, and the connection with Csikvari's inequality.
a record upper bound; the exact constant remains unknown
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
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.