k-Domination invariants on Kneser graphs
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
Is there some C(r)>2 such that holds for all r ≥2 ?
Context
Candidate 4 of the open problems stated in "k-Domination invariants on Kneser graphs", 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: In finite simple graphs, let be the Kneser graph on the -subsets of , with adjacency given by disjointness. Let be the maximum size of a vertex set whose distinct members have graph-distance at least . The reconstructed question asks whether, for every integer , there is a real number such that
This matches the paper’s notation and its stated Problem 23.
Result: Yes. In fact,
for every . Hence one may take
Proof. For , a family is a -packing in iff every two distinct satisfy
Indeed, means adjacency, while have a common neighbor iff has size at least , i.e. iff .
Let be a maximum -packing in . Add four new points split as
Define
For distinct , intersections inside are either , , or , all lying between and . Thus is a -packing in of size .
Since , ; for example two -sets with intersection cannot both lie in a -packing. Choose , and set
For every ,
Because , we have , so these intersections lie between and . Hence is a -packing in . Therefore
Finally, since ,
which proves the claim.
Audit: No extra hypotheses beyond were introduced. The proof uses only the standard Kneser graph definition and the exact distance characterization for odd Kneser graphs, proved above. The conclusion gives an explicit , exactly matching the reconstructed statement.
Citation: Problem source: Brešar, Cornet, Dravec, Henning, “-Domination invariants on Kneser graphs,” arXiv:2312.15464, Problem 23. No prior resolution is used here.
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 TYPE1
PASS
The proof attacks the exact stated problem. The distance/intersection characterization for is correct: a 2-packing requires pairwise intersections between and .
The doubling construction gives valid vertices in , and the added mixed vertex is compatible with all of them because its intersections are . The existence of is justified for . Thus
which yields the claimed .
I found the source paper’s Proposition 12 gives only the weaker factor , and no stronger prior result surfaced in the checked arXiv/source context.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The result is a very small strengthening of Proposition 12 in the source paper: the published construction already gives the factor , and the accepted proof adds one extra admissible vertex to obtain . This resolves the stated question because is allowed to depend on , but the improvement is tiny and elementary. It is not enough for a standalone combinatorics paper; at most it would be a short remark or addendum.
Literature check: I found no source stating the strengthening or resolving Problem 23. The arXiv search for “Kneser” and “2-packing” returns essentially the source paper and the earlier Cornet–Torres paper. The source paper itself states Proposition 12 with only the weaker factor , then explicitly asks Problem 23. Searches for the exact expressions , , “”, and “odd graph 2-packing” did not reveal a prior resolution.
Citation: Brešar, Cornet, Dravec, Henning, “-Domination invariants on Kneser graphs,” arXiv:2312.15464, Proposition 12 and Problem 23. Earlier related work: Cornet and Torres, “-tuple domination on Kneser graphs,” arXiv:2308.15603.
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.