ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Problems in Graph Theory from Memphis

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.

problems-in-graph-theory-from-memphis-19Combinatoricsmath.COposed by Ralph J. Faudree, Cecil C. Rousseau, Richard H. Schelprecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

What is the smallest n for which Φn(G,H)=\Phi_{n}(G,H)= r(G, H)-2 ? Does this relation hold for all n ≥r(G, H) ?

Context

Candidate 19 of the open problems stated in "Problems in Graph Theory from Memphis", 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: Reconstruct Φn(G,H)\Phi_n(G,H) as the worst-case least degree-spread forced in a Ramsey copy: for an nn-vertex graph FF, let

    spF(X)=maxxXdF(x)minxXdF(x),\operatorname{sp}_F(X)=\max_{x\in X}d_F(x)-\min_{x\in X}d_F(x),

    and let Φn(G,H)\Phi_n(G,H) be the maximum, over all nn-vertex graphs FF, of the minimum spF(X)\operatorname{sp}_F(X) over vertex sets XX spanning a copy of GG in FF or a copy of HH in F\overline F. The question asks whether

    Φn(G,H)=r(G,H)2\Phi_n(G,H)=r(G,H)-2

    for all nr(G,H)n\ge r(G,H).

    Result: The asserted relation is false. Take G=K2G=K_2, H=K4H=K_4. Then r(K2,K4)=4r(K_2,K_4)=4: every graph on 44 vertices either has an edge or is empty, hence has an independent 44-set, while the empty graph on 33 vertices avoids both.

    I claim

    Φ5(K2,K4)=1.\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)=1.

    Lower bound: let F=P32K1F=P_3\cup 2K_1. Its degrees are 2,1,1,0,02,1,1,0,0. Every edge has degree-spread 11, and the only independent 44-set consists of the two leaves of P3P_3 and the two isolated vertices, also with spread 11. Hence Φ5(K2,K4)1\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)\ge1.

    Upper bound: let FF be any graph on 55 vertices. If some edge joins vertices whose degrees differ by at most 11, we are done. Otherwise every edge joins degrees differing by at least 22. Let Δ\Delta be the maximum degree.

    If Δ=4\Delta=4, the four nonuniversal vertices all have degrees 11 or 22, and no two of them can be adjacent, so they form an independent 44-set of spread at most 11.
    If Δ2\Delta\le2, then no degree-22 vertex can have a neighbor, contradiction unless the graph is empty; then an independent 44-set has spread 00.
    If Δ=3\Delta=3, a degree-33 vertex has three neighbors, all of degree 11; the remaining vertex must have degree 00. Those three degree-11 vertices together with the degree-00 vertex form an independent 44-set of spread 11.

    Thus Φ5(K2,K4)1\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)\le1, proving equality. Therefore

    Φ5(K2,K4)=1<2=r(K2,K4)2,\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)=1<2=r(K_2,K_4)-2,

    with 5r(K2,K4)5\ge r(K_2,K_4). Hence the proposed relation does not hold for all nr(G,H)n\ge r(G,H).

    Citation: No external citation; the counterexample and proof above are self-contained.

    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 TYPE1

      PASS

      The counterexample attacks the stated “for all nr(G,H)n\ge r(G,H)” question. For G=K2,H=K4G=K_2,H=K_4, r(G,H)=4r(G,H)=4, and the proof that Φ5(K2,K4)=1<2=r(G,H)2\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)=1<2=r(G,H)-2 is correct under the standard degree-spread definition. The case analysis for the upper bound is sufficient, and the lower-bound example P32K1P_3\cup 2K_1 works. Thus the claimed universal relation is rigorously disproved.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result is a valid counterexample to the “for all nr(G,H)n\ge r(G,H)” part, but it is a very small, elementary special case: G=K2G=K_2, H=K4H=K_4, n=5n=5. Even if not previously recorded, it is not substantial enough for a standalone combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I searched for the specific notation and statement, including variants of Φn(G,H)\Phi_n(G,H), “degree spread” with Ramsey numbers, “Repeated Degrees and Degree Spread,” and the Memphis problem title/question. I found no accessible source recording Φ5(K2,K4)=1\Phi_5(K_2,K_4)=1 or a stronger published theorem that immediately lists this counterexample. The only clear source located is the original problem context.

      Citation: Original problem: Ralph J. Faudree, Cecil C. Rousseau, Richard H. Schelp, Problems in Graph Theory from Memphis, §2.8, Question 14. No prior citation found for the counterexample.

      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.