ON THE LARGEST DISTANCE (SIGNLESS LAPLACIAN) EIGENVALUE OF NON-TRANSMISSION-REGULAR 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
Let be a connected non-transmission-regular graph with vertices. Then
Context
Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "ON THE LARGEST DISTANCE (SIGNLESS LAPLACIAN) EIGENVALUE OF NON-TRANSMISSION-REGULAR 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: For a finite simple connected graph on vertices, let be its distance matrix. Let
and let be the Perron/largest eigenvalue of . The graph is transmission-regular if all are equal. The reconstructed conjecture is:
If is connected and not transmission-regular, then
This matches the paper’s notation: is the maximum transmission degree and is the largest distance eigenvalue.
Result: The conjecture is true. In fact,
Proof. Put , and write . Since is symmetric,
For , we have , and because is not transmission-regular, some . Also for . For any real vector ,
Let , nonempty. Since and on ,
Choosing , this gives the Loewner inequality
where is the Laplacian of the complete graph and has a single in position .
By symmetry take . The smallest eigenvalue of
is computed on vectors . The eigenvalue equations are
so
Hence
Therefore
Finally,
Thus
Verification audit: no extra graph-theoretic assumptions were added beyond finite, simple, connected, non-transmission-regular; the proof uses only standard distance-matrix facts and Rayleigh-Ritz; the strict conjectured inequality follows exactly.
Citation: No external citation used; proof supplied above.
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 KNOWN
PASS
The proof addresses exactly the conjectured statement. The quadratic-form identity for is correct, non-transmission-regularity gives an integer row-sum deficit at some vertex, and the Loewner comparison with is valid. The smallest eigenvalue computation gives the stated lower bound, which is strictly larger than . No fatal gaps or mismatches were found.
Novelty assessment
KNOWN
Classification rationale: The conjectured inequality is already resolved in the literature, so the accepted “new” resolution should be classified as known. In fact, a published paper gives a lower bound for and states that this solves the conjecture of Liu, Shu and Xue.
Literature check: A search for “maximum transmission distance spectral radius conjecture” and related terms led to Liu–Shan–He (2022), whose Springer abstract says: “we give a lower bound for … As a corollary, we solve a conjecture posed by Liu, Shu and Xue.” Here is exactly the maximum row sum of the distance matrix, i.e. maximum transmission. A later arXiv paper by Xu–Xi–Wang on -spectral radius also cites this 2022 paper as proving the conjecture and gives stronger generalized bounds.
Citation: Lele Liu, Haiying Shan, Changxiang He, “A Proof of a Conjecture on the Distance Spectral Radius and Maximum Transmission of Graphs,” Graphs and Combinatorics 38, Article 49 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-021-02455-x
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.