ProbXiv
sign in

PARTITE SATURATION OF COMPLETE GRAPHS*

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by ANTÓNIO GIRÃO, TEERADEJ KITTIPASSORN, KAMIL POPIELARZ · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

α(k, r) = (k - 1)(4r - k - 6) for 5 ≤ r ≤ k ≤ 2r - 4.

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "PARTITE SATURATION OF COMPLETE GRAPHS*", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

begin a project on this problem →

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 integers 5≤r≤k≤2r−45\le r\le k\le 2r-4,

    α(k,r)=(k−1)(4r−k−6),\alpha(k,r)=(k-1)(4r-k-6),

    where α(k,r)\alpha(k,r) is the minimum of e(X,V(G)∖X)e(X,V(G)\setminus X) over all finite KrK_r-partite-saturated kk-partite graphs GG with a fixed kk-partition and an independent transversal XX containing one vertex from each part. This matches the paper’s definition of α\alpha and Conjecture 21.

    Result: The conjecture is false already for (k,r)=(5,5)(k,r)=(5,5), where it predicts

    α(5,5)=4(20−5−6)=36.\alpha(5,5)=4(20-5-6)=36.

    Construct a 5-partite graph G0G_0 with parts

    V1={x1,a1,a2},V2={x2,b1,b2},V3={x3,c1,c2},V_1=\{x_1,a_1,a_2\},\quad V_2=\{x_2,b_1,b_2\},\quad V_3=\{x_3,c_1,c_2\}, V4={x4,d1,d2},V5={x5,e1,e2},V_4=\{x_4,d_1,d_2\},\quad V_5=\{x_5,e_1,e_2\},

    and X={x1,…,x5}X=\{x_1,\dots,x_5\}. Let XX be independent. The XX-to-XcX^c edges are:

    N(x1)={b1,b2,c1,d1,d2,e1,e2},N(x2)={a1,a2,c1,c2,d1,d2,e2},N(x3)={a2,b1,b2,d1,d2,e1,e2},N(x4)={a1,a2,b1,c1,c2,e1,e2},N(x5)={a1,a2,b1,b2,c1,c2,d1}.\begin{aligned} N(x_1)&=\{b_1,b_2,c_1,d_1,d_2,e_1,e_2\},\\ N(x_2)&=\{a_1,a_2,c_1,c_2,d_1,d_2,e_2\},\\ N(x_3)&=\{a_2,b_1,b_2,d_1,d_2,e_1,e_2\},\\ N(x_4)&=\{a_1,a_2,b_1,c_1,c_2,e_1,e_2\},\\ N(x_5)&=\{a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2,c_1,c_2,d_1\}. \end{aligned}

    Thus e(X,Xc)=5⋅7=35e(X,X^c)=5\cdot 7=35.

    The edges inside XcX^c are:

    V1V2a1b2,a2b1,a2b2V1V3a1c1,a1c2,a2c2V1V4a1d1,a1d2,a2d1V1V5a1e1,a2e1,a2e2V2V3b1c1,b1c2,b2c2V2V4b1d1,b2d2V2V5b1e1,b2e1,b2e2V3V4c1d1,c1d2,c2d2V3V5c1e1,c1e2,c2e2V4V5d1e2,d2e1,d2e2.\begin{array}{c|l} V_1V_2&a_1b_2,a_2b_1,a_2b_2\\ V_1V_3&a_1c_1,a_1c_2,a_2c_2\\ V_1V_4&a_1d_1,a_1d_2,a_2d_1\\ V_1V_5&a_1e_1,a_2e_1,a_2e_2\\ V_2V_3&b_1c_1,b_1c_2,b_2c_2\\ V_2V_4&b_1d_1,b_2d_2\\ V_2V_5&b_1e_1,b_2e_1,b_2e_2\\ V_3V_4&c_1d_1,c_1d_2,c_2d_2\\ V_3V_5&c_1e_1,c_1e_2,c_2e_2\\ V_4V_5&d_1e_2,d_2e_1,d_2e_2. \end{array}

    A direct check from this table shows that the only 44-cliques in XcX^c are

    {a1,b2,c2,d2},{a1,b2,d2,e1},{a1,c1,d2,e1},\{a_1,b_2,c_2,d_2\},\quad \{a_1,b_2,d_2,e_1\},\quad \{a_1,c_1,d_2,e_1\}, {a2,b2,c2,e2},{b2,c2,d2,e2}.\{a_2,b_2,c_2,e_2\},\quad \{b_2,c_2,d_2,e_2\}.

    None extends to a 55-clique in XcX^c, and none extends with the missing xix_i, since respectively

    x5d2, x3a1, x2e1, x4b2, x1c2x_5d_2,\ x_3a_1,\ x_2e_1,\ x_4b_2,\ x_1c_2

    are nonedges. Hence G0G_0 is K5K_5-free.

    Every admissible nonedge incident with XX is already K5K_5-saturated. Witnessing common triangles are:

    nonedgecommon trianglex1x2c1d1e2x1x3b2d2e1x1x4b1c1e1x1x5b1c1d1x2x3a2d1e2x2x4a2c2e2x2x5a1c1d1x3x4a2b1e1x3x5a2b1d1x4x5a2b1c2x1c2b2d2e2x2e1a1c1d2x3a1b2d2e1x4b2a2c2e2x5d2a1b2c2.\begin{array}{c|c} \text{nonedge} & \text{common triangle}\\ \hline x_1x_2&c_1d_1e_2\\ x_1x_3&b_2d_2e_1\\ x_1x_4&b_1c_1e_1\\ x_1x_5&b_1c_1d_1\\ x_2x_3&a_2d_1e_2\\ x_2x_4&a_2c_2e_2\\ x_2x_5&a_1c_1d_1\\ x_3x_4&a_2b_1e_1\\ x_3x_5&a_2b_1d_1\\ x_4x_5&a_2b_1c_2\\ x_1c_2&b_2d_2e_2\\ x_2e_1&a_1c_1d_2\\ x_3a_1&b_2d_2e_1\\ x_4b_2&a_2c_2e_2\\ x_5d_2&a_1b_2c_2. \end{array}

    Now add admissible edges inside XcX^c greedily as long as doing so does not create a K5K_5. The resulting finite graph GG is K5K_5-partite-saturated; the witnesses above remain valid, and every remaining nonedge inside XcX^c is saturated by maximality. No edge incident with XX was added, so

    eG(X,Xc)=35.e_G(X,X^c)=35.

    Therefore

    α(5,5)≤35<36,\alpha(5,5)\le 35<36,

    contradicting the conjectured value. Thus Conjecture 21 is false.

    Citation: Definitions and conjecture: Girão, Kittipassorn, Popielarz, “Partite Saturation of Complete Graphs,” arXiv:1708.01607, Conjecture 21. The counterexample above is explicit.

    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 construction attacks the correct conjecture at (k,r)=(5,5)(k,r)=(5,5), where the formula predicts 3636. The listed graph has e(X,Xc)=35e(X,X^c)=35. The finite clique check is valid: the listed 44-cliques in XcX^c do not extend to a K5K_5, and the witness triangles saturate every admissible nonedge incident with XX. The maximal K5K_5-free completion inside XcX^c then makes all remaining admissible nonedges saturated without changing e(X,Xc)e(X,X^c). Hence α(5,5)≤35<36\alpha(5,5)\le 35<36, disproving the conjecture. I found no prior published stronger or equivalent counterexample.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I can tell, but the contribution is a very small explicit counterexample at the single parameter pair (k,r)=(5,5)(k,r)=(5,5). It refutes the stated conjecture, but does not determine α(5,5)\alpha(5,5), give a family of counterexamples, or introduce a method likely to affect the broader partite saturation problem. On its own it is more suitable as a short note/erratum-style observation than a standard journal paper.

      Literature check: I found the conjecture in Girão–Kittipassorn–Popielarz, arXiv:1708.01607, and did not find a later paper, note, forum post, or indexed source giving this counterexample or a stronger determination of α(5,5)\alpha(5,5). Searches for the paper title, “partite saturation”, “α(k,r)\alpha(k,r)”, “sat(n,k,r)”, “Conjecture 21”, and “KrK_r-partite-saturated” did not reveal an existing resolution.

      Citation: António Girão, Teeradej Kittipassorn, Kamil Popielarz, “Partite Saturation of Complete Graphs,” arXiv:1708.01607.

      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.

open in Claude →open in ChatGPT →

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.