ProbXiv
sign in

K-Chains Problem and Why it Matters for Extremal Contexts

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by Bogdan Chornomaz · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

Maximal in size concept lattice of a formal context (G, M, I) of VC-dimension at most k, such that |G| + |M| = 2n, and such that k divides n, is the Cartesian product of k chains of length n/k - 1 each: L=kC(nk),L = \bigotimes_{k} C\left(\frac{n}{k}\right), where C(l) is an l-element chain. The size of L is (n/k)^k.

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "K-Chains Problem and Why it Matters for Extremal Contexts", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

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 conjecture: for positive integers knk\mid n, every finite formal context (G,M,I)(G,M,I) with G+M=2n|G|+|M|=2n and VC-dimension at most kk has at most (n/k)k(n/k)^k concepts, with equality attained by the Cartesian product of kk chains C(n/k)C(n/k). The VC-dimension convention is ambiguous, but the counterexample below has VC-dimension 22 under the usual attribute-extents convention and also under the concept-extents convention.

    Result: The conjecture is false already for k=2,n=4k=2,n=4.

    Let

    G={1,2,3,4},M={a,b,c,d},G=\{1,2,3,4\},\qquad M=\{a,b,c,d\},

    with attribute extents

    a={1,3},b={1,4},c={2,3},d={2,4}.a'=\{1,3\},\quad b'=\{1,4\},\quad c'=\{2,3\},\quad d'=\{2,4\}.

    Thus G+M=8=2n|G|+|M|=8=2n.

    The concept extents are exactly the intersections of these four sets, including the empty intersection GG:

    {1234, 13, 14, 23, 24, 1, 2, 3, 4, }.\{1234,\ 13,\ 14,\ 23,\ 24,\ 1,\ 2,\ 3,\ 4,\ \varnothing\}.

    Hence the concept lattice has 1010 elements.

    The attribute family shatters {1,3}\{1,3\}:

    a{1,3}={1,3},b{1,3}={1},c{1,3}={3},d{1,3}=.a'\cap\{1,3\}=\{1,3\},\quad b'\cap\{1,3\}=\{1\},\quad c'\cap\{1,3\}=\{3\},\quad d'\cap\{1,3\}=\varnothing.

    No 3-set can be shattered by the four attribute extents, since shattering a 3-set would require 88 distinct traces. Thus the usual VC-dimension is exactly 22.

    If VC-dimension is instead taken for the whole concept-extents family, it is still 22: pairs are shattered, but every 3-subset contains either {1,2}\{1,2\} or {3,4}\{3,4\}, and neither of those appears as a trace of a concept extent on such a triple.

    For k=2,n=4k=2,n=4, the conjectured maximum is

    (n/k)k=22=4,(n/k)^k=2^2=4,

    but this context has 1010 concepts. Even the natural off-by-one repair (n/k+1)k=32=9(n/k+1)^k=3^2=9 is refuted by the same example. The context is finite, balanced, and reduced; the failure is not caused by duplicate rows/columns or an empty/vacuous case.

    Citation: No external citation is needed; this is an explicit finite counterexample.

    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 proposed context is a valid finite counterexample. Its concept extents are exactly the 10 listed intersections, and its VC-dimension is at most 2 (indeed exactly 2); no 3-subset is shattered by the concept-extents family, equivalently no B3B_3 order-embeds in the lattice. For k=2,n=4k=2,n=4, G+M=8=2n|G|+|M|=8=2n and knk\mid n, but the lattice has 10 concepts, exceeding the conjectured (n/k)k=4(n/k)^k=4. I found no prior published explicit refutation in the literature search.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: This appears to be a genuinely new explicit counterexample, but it is very small and elementary: a 4×44\times4 formal context with 10 concepts refutes the conjectured bound already for k=2,n=4k=2,n=4. This is not enough for a standalone combinatorics paper; at most it would merit a short erratum/comment or note.

      Literature check: I checked the original CLA 2018 paper, Chornomaz’s 2018 slides on extremal lattices with bounded VC dimension, exact-title searches, searches for “K-chains problem” with “counterexample”, “formal contexts of bounded VC dimension”, “product of k chains”, and searches for the specific small 44-object/44-attribute/10-concept configuration. The searches found the original paper, database mirrors, and related background on VC-dimension/extremal lattices, but no published counterexample, correction, or stronger known refutation of Conjecture 1.

      Citation: Bogdan Chornomaz, “K-Chains Problem and Why it Matters for Extremal Contexts,” CLA 2018, CEUR-WS Vol. 2123, pp. 9–23, 2018. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2123/paper1.pdf

      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.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

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