ON THE DIMENSION OF ARCHIMEDEAN SOLIDS
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
Nevertheless, we conjecture that their dimension is 2.
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "ON THE DIMENSION OF ARCHIMEDEAN SOLIDS", 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: Reconstructed conjecture: in the Erdős–Harary–Tutte unit-distance sense, the two unresolved Archimedean-solid graphs in Madaras–Široczki—especially the rhombicosidodecahedral graph—have graph dimension . A planar dimension- representation would in particular give an injective map of vertices to with every graph edge drawn as length .
Result: The conjecture is false. The rhombicosidodecahedral graph has no injective planar unit-distance representation.
Let be the dodecahedron. Model the rhombicosidodecahedral graph by vertices , where is a vertex of incident with a face . Two such vertices are adjacent if either they share a face and the corresponding vertices of are adjacent, or they share a vertex and the corresponding faces are incident there.
Assume is an injective unit-distance representation. If is an edge of with incident faces , then
is a 4-cycle of unit edges. Four distinct points forming an equilateral quadrilateral form a parallelogram, hence
Now pass to the dual , the icosahedral graph. For an oriented dual edge , define
where is either endpoint of the primal edge shared by . Equation (1) makes this well-defined, and .
At each vertex of , the three incident faces form a triangular face of , and
Since the facial triangles generate the cycle space of the planar triangulation , the cochain integrates to points satisfying
Thus is a planar unit-distance representation of the icosahedral graph.
But this is impossible. In the icosahedral graph, the five neighbors of any vertex induce a 5-cycle. If the central vertex is placed at , its five neighbors lie on the unit circle. Consecutive neighbors in the 5-cycle are also distance , so their angular differences must each be . Around a closed 5-cycle, the sum of five signs would have to be divisible by , impossible.
Therefore has no planar unit-distance representation, so its dimension is not . This disproves the conjecture.
Citation: Conjecture from T. Madaras and P. Široczki, “On the dimension of Archimedean solids,” Opuscula Mathematica 34(1) (2014), 123–138, Section 6. The disproof above is self-contained.
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 disproof is mathematically sound: any planar unit-distance embedding of the rhombicosidodecahedral graph would force each square 4-cycle to be a parallelogram, yielding a well-defined unit edge-vector cocycle on the dual icosahedral graph. The cocycle integrates because the triangular faces generate the cycle space. This would give a planar unit-distance representation of the icosahedral graph, which is impossible by the odd 5-neighbor cycle argument. Thus the conjectured dimension-2 statement is disproved. I did not find an existing comparable published resolution in the available literature checks.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The argument is genuinely useful but very small: it is a short, elementary disproof of one low-profile conjectural case about a specific Archimedean-solid graph. It relies on standard unit-distance “rhombus” reasoning and the classical fact that the 5-wheel is not a planar unit-distance graph. On its own this is more suitable as a corrigendum/short note or part of a broader classification than as a standalone standard combinatorics paper.
Literature check: I found the original Madaras–Široczki conjecture and general references on unit-distance graph dimension, including the known non-unit-distance behavior of wheel graphs. I did not find a prior paper, note, database entry, or survey explicitly proving that the small rhombicosidodecahedral graph has dimension 3 or disproving the Archimedean-solids conjecture. MathWorld’s pages on the small rhombicosidodecahedral graph and icosahedral graph do not state this result; its unit-distance graph page lists relevant general facts but not this consequence. Search queries for “rhombicosidodecahedral graph unit distance/dimension”, “Madaras Siroczki Archimedean dimension”, and related variants found only the original paper and general graph/polyhedron pages.
Citation: T. Madaras and P. Široczki, “On the dimension of Archimedean solids,” Opuscula Mathematica 34(1) (2014), 123–138. Relevant background: F. Buckley and F. Harary, “On the Euclidean dimension of a wheel,” Graphs and Combinatorics 4 (1988), 23–30.
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.