ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

On regular packings and coverings

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.

on-regular-packings-and-coverings-6Combinatoricsmath.COposed by J-C. Bermond, J. Bond, D. Sotteaurecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

We conjecture that the necessary conditions are sufficient in general, except eventually for a few values (for example it can be shown that K_{4,4,4,1} cannot be decomposed into K_4's).

Context

Candidate 6 of the open problems stated in "On regular packings and coverings", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

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.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

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

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 a1,…,ara_1,\dots,a_r, the complete multipartite graph

    Ka1,…,arK_{a_1,\dots,a_r}

    has a K4K_4-edge-decomposition whenever the obvious divisibility conditions hold, apart from finitely many exceptional tuples. The obvious conditions are:

    1. every vertex degree is divisible by 33:
    ∑j≠iaj≡0(mod3)∀i;\sum_{j\ne i} a_j \equiv 0 \pmod 3 \quad \forall i;
    1. the number of edges is divisible by 66:
    ∑i<jaiaj≡0(mod6).\sum_{i<j} a_i a_j \equiv 0 \pmod 6.

    These are forced because each K4K_4 contributes degree 33 at each used vertex and has 66 edges.

    Result: The conjecture is false. There are infinitely many counterexamples.

    For every integer q≥2q\ge 2, let

    Gq=K3,3,3,3,3q.G_q=K_{3,3,3,3,3q}.

    Let its five parts be A1,A2,A3,A4,A5A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5, where ∣Ai∣=3|A_i|=3 for i≤4i\le 4, and ∣A5∣=3q|A_5|=3q.

    The divisibility conditions hold:

    • If v∈Aiv\in A_i, i≤4i\le 4, then
    deg⁡(v)=9+3q≡0(mod3).\deg(v)=9+3q\equiv 0\pmod 3.
    • If v∈A5v\in A_5, then
    deg⁡(v)=12≡0(mod3).\deg(v)=12\equiv 0\pmod 3.
    • The edge count is
    (42)3⋅3+4⋅3⋅3q=54+36q,\binom{4}{2}3\cdot 3+4\cdot 3\cdot 3q =54+36q,

    which is divisible by 66.

    Assume, for contradiction, that GqG_q has a K4K_4-decomposition. Since GqG_q has five parts, every K4K_4 uses vertices from exactly four parts, so each block omits exactly one part. Let xix_i be the number of K4K_4's omitting AiA_i. The total number of blocks is

    B=54+36q6=9+6q.B=\frac{54+36q}{6}=9+6q.

    For 1≤i<j≤41\le i<j\le 4, the number of edges between AiA_i and AjA_j is 99, and every block containing both parts covers exactly one such edge. Hence

    B−xi−xj=9,B-x_i-x_j=9,

    so

    xi+xj=6q.x_i+x_j=6q.

    Thus x1=x2=x3=x4=3qx_1=x_2=x_3=x_4=3q.

    Now compare AiA_i with A5A_5. There are 9q9q edges between them, so

    B−xi−x5=9q.B-x_i-x_5=9q.

    Using xi=3qx_i=3q,

    9+6q−3q−x5=9q,9+6q-3q-x_5=9q,

    hence

    x5=9−6q<0x_5=9-6q<0

    for every q≥2q\ge 2, impossible.

    Therefore K3,3,3,3,3qK_{3,3,3,3,3q} satisfies the stated necessary divisibility conditions but admits no K4K_4-decomposition, for infinitely many qq. So the conjecture, as naturally reconstructed, is false.

    Citation: No external citation needed; the counterexample and proof are elementary.

    Reviews

    0 human 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 KNOWN

      PASS

      The counterexample family is rigorous under the solution’s stated reconstruction. Each K3,3,3,3,3qK_{3,3,3,3,3q} satisfies the degree and edge-count divisibility conditions for a K4K_4-decomposition. The block-count equations by omitted part are valid and force x5=9−6q<0x_5=9-6q<0 for q≥2q\ge2, impossible. Hence there are infinitely many admissible non-decomposable examples, disproving that reconstructed conjecture.

      Novelty assessment

      KNOWN

      Classification rationale: The proof is an elementary valid obstruction, but it is a standard necessary condition in the equivalent theory of 44-GDDs. A K4K_4-decomposition of Ka1,…,arK_{a_1,\dots,a_r} is exactly a 44-group divisible design with group sizes aia_i. For type gum1g^u m^1, the usual necessary conditions include

      m≤g(u−1)2.m\le \frac{g(u-1)}2.

      With g=3,u=4,m=3qg=3,u=4,m=3q, this gives 3q≤9/23q\le 9/2, excluding every q≥2q\ge2. Thus the proposed “counterexamples” are already ruled out by known feasibility conditions; the reconstruction simply omitted this standard condition.

      Literature check: Searches for the exact family K3,3,3,3,3qK_{3,3,3,3,3q} did not reveal that notation, but the equivalent 44-GDD type 34(3q)13^4(3q)^1 lies squarely inside the well-studied 44-GDD spectrum problem for type gum1g^u m^1. Forbes’s papers explicitly study 44-GDDs of type gum1g^u m^1 and refer to the necessary conditions for their existence; these stronger standard conditions immediately imply nonexistence of the whole family.

      Citation: Anthony D. Forbes, “Group divisible designs with block size 4 and type gum1g^u m^1 - II,” arXiv:1806.07491, 2018; and “Group divisible designs with block size four and type gum1g^u m^1 - III,” arXiv:1903.07064, 2019. See also D. R. Rees and D. R. Stinson, “On the existence of incomplete block designs of block size four having one hole,” Utilitas Math. 35 (1989), 119–152.

      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 endorsements

    No 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

no comments

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.