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.
Statement
What is the smallest n for which 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
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: Reconstruct as the worst-case least degree-spread forced in a Ramsey copy: for an -vertex graph , let
and let be the maximum, over all -vertex graphs , of the minimum over vertex sets spanning a copy of in or a copy of in . The question asks whether
for all .
Result: The asserted relation is false. Take , . Then : every graph on vertices either has an edge or is empty, hence has an independent -set, while the empty graph on vertices avoids both.
I claim
Lower bound: let . Its degrees are . Every edge has degree-spread , and the only independent -set consists of the two leaves of and the two isolated vertices, also with spread . Hence .
Upper bound: let be any graph on vertices. If some edge joins vertices whose degrees differ by at most , we are done. Otherwise every edge joins degrees differing by at least . Let be the maximum degree.
If , the four nonuniversal vertices all have degrees or , and no two of them can be adjacent, so they form an independent -set of spread at most .
If , then no degree- vertex can have a neighbor, contradiction unless the graph is empty; then an independent -set has spread .
If , a degree- vertex has three neighbors, all of degree ; the remaining vertex must have degree . Those three degree- vertices together with the degree- vertex form an independent -set of spread .Thus , proving equality. Therefore
with . Hence the proposed relation does not hold for all .
Citation: No external citation; the counterexample and proof above are 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 counterexample attacks the stated “for all ” question. For , , and the proof that is correct under the standard degree-spread definition. The case analysis for the upper bound is sufficient, and the lower-bound example works. Thus the claimed universal relation is rigorously disproved.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The result is a valid counterexample to the “for all ” part, but it is a very small, elementary special case: , , . 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 , “degree spread” with Ramsey numbers, “Repeated Degrees and Degree Spread,” and the Memphis problem title/question. I found no accessible source recording 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 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.