ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Rigid frameworks with dilation constraints

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.

rigid-frameworks-with-dilation-constraintsSpectral Theorymath.COmath.SPposed by Sean Dewar, Anthony Nixon, Andrew Sainsburyrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Let (G, p) be a generic framework in R^d. If (G, p) is globally (d, k)-rigid and G is not complete, then there exists σ ∈ ker DR_k(G, p)^T such that rank Ω(σ) = |V| − d + k − 1.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Rigid frameworks with dilation constraints", 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: Conjecture 6.1 states: for 1k<d1\le k<d, if a generic framework (G,p)Rd(G,p)\subset \mathbb R^d is globally (d,k)(d,k)-rigid and GG is not complete, then there is

    σkerDRk(G,p)T\sigma\in \ker DR_k(G,p)^T

    whose stress matrix satisfies

    rankΩ(σ)=Vd+k1.\operatorname{rank}\Omega(\sigma)=|V|-d+k-1 .

    Here DRk(G,p)=[R(G,p~) fG,1(pdk+1)fG,1(pd)]DR_k(G,p)=[R(G,\tilde p)\ f_{G,1}(p_{d-k+1})\cdots f_{G,1}(p_d)], and Ω(σ)\Omega(\sigma) is the usual graph Laplacian stress matrix.

    Result: The conjecture is false.

    Take d=3, k=2d=3,\ k=2, and let

    G=K4e,V={1,2,3,4},E={12,13,23,14,24}.G=K_4-e,\qquad V=\{1,2,3,4\},\quad E=\{12,13,23,14,24\}.

    So GG is two triangles sharing the edge 1212, and is not complete.

    Consider the rational framework

    p10=(0,1,2),p20=(3,5,7),p30=(2,11,13),p40=(4,17,19).p^0_1=(0,1,2),\quad p^0_2=(3,5,7),\quad p^0_3=(-2,11,13),\quad p^0_4=(4,17,19).

    For a (3,2)(3,2)-equivalent framework qq, write

    qi=(Xi,λyi,μzi),t=λ2, s=μ2.q_i=(X_i,\lambda y_i,\mu z_i),\qquad t=\lambda^2,\ s=\mu^2 .

    For each triangle 12r12r, r=3,4r=3,4, the modified squared edge lengths must be realizable on a line in the XX-coordinate. The Cayley collinearity equations for p0p^0 are

    36st1885s1480t+3329=0,36st-1885s-1480t+3329=0, 144st1105s1168t+2129=0.144st-1105s-1168t+2129=0.

    Their only real solutions are

    (t,s)=(1,1)and(t,s)=(845432,1862585).(t,s)=(1,1) \quad\text{and}\quad (t,s)=\left(-\frac{845}{432},\frac{1862}{585}\right).

    Since t=λ20t=\lambda^2\ge0, s=μ20s=\mu^2\ge0, only (t,s)=(1,1)(t,s)=(1,1) is admissible.

    This property is open under small perturbations of p0p^0. Also, at p0p^0, the matrix DR2(G,p0)DR_2(G,p^0) has full row rank 55; for example, the minor using columns x1,x2,x3x_1,x_2,x_3 and the two dilation columns has determinant 168564-168564. Hence, after shrinking to a nonempty open neighbourhood UU of p0p^0, every pUp\in U still has:

    1. the only admissible dilation squares t,st,s equal to 1,11,1;
    2. rankDR2(G,p)=5=E\operatorname{rank}DR_2(G,p)=5=|E|.

    Choose pUp\in U with algebraically independent coordinates; such pp is generic. For this pp, any (3,2)(3,2)-equivalent qq has λ,μ=±1\lambda,\mu=\pm1. Then the remaining XX-coordinates form a one-dimensional framework on K4eK_4-e with the same edge lengths as xx. Since the shared edge 1212 determines vertices 33 and 44 from their distances to 1,21,2, XX is congruent to xx on the line. Thus qq is obtained from pp by an isometry of R3\mathbb R^3. Therefore (G,p)(G,p) is globally (3,2)(3,2)-rigid.

    But rankDR2(G,p)=E=5\operatorname{rank}DR_2(G,p)=|E|=5, so

    kerDR2(G,p)T={0}.\ker DR_2(G,p)^T=\{0\}.

    Thus no nonzero stress exists, while the conjectured rank is

    Vd+k1=43+21=2.|V|-d+k-1=4-3+2-1=2.

    So Conjecture 6.1 fails.

    A natural repair would need at least to exclude stressless minimally (d,k)(d,k)-rigid globally rigid examples such as this one, e.g. by adding some redundant-rigidity or nonzero-stress hypothesis.

    Citation: No known prior resolution used. Definitions and conjecture are from Dewar–Nixon–Sainsbury, “Rigid frameworks with dilation constraints,” arXiv:2402.14093.

    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 KNOWN

      PASS

      The proposed d=3,k=2d=3,k=2 counterexample with G=K4eG=K_4-e attacks the correct conjecture. The Cayley equations and the rank computation are consistent, and the openness step is justifiable by continuity of the finite bilinear solution system near p0p^0. Thus one can choose a generic pp nearby for which any (3,2)(3,2)-equivalent framework has only λ2=μ2=1\lambda^2=\mu^2=1, forcing congruence via the shared edge in the 1-dimensional xx-framework. Meanwhile DR2(G,p)DR_2(G,p) has full row rank 55, so kerDR2(G,p)T=0\ker DR_2(G,p)^T=0, making the required rank-2 stress impossible. This is a valid disproof of Conjecture 6.1.

      Novelty assessment

      KNOWN

      Classification rationale: The counterexample is already an immediate consequence of the original Dewar–Nixon–Sainsbury paper itself. Taking two copies of K3K_3 sharing an edge gives K4eK_4-e; by their Lemma 5.12 this generic framework is globally (3,2)(3,2)-rigid. Their Theorem 4.2/4.3 and Example 4.4 give that K4eK_4-e is minimally (3,2)(3,2)-rigid, so for a generic realization rankDR2=E=5\operatorname{rank} DR_2=|E|=5, hence kerDR2T=0\ker DR_2^T=0. Thus it cannot have the rank-2 stress required by Conjecture 6.1.

      Literature check: Searches for the title, Conjecture 6.1, DRkDR_k, globally (d,k)(d,k)-rigid frameworks, and K4eK_4-e found no later erratum or follow-up resolving the conjecture. However, DBLP/Lancaster show the paper was published in Discrete Mathematics in 2025, and the arXiv/published content already contains the general lemmas implying this counterexample.

      Citation: Sean Dewar, Anthony Nixon, Andrew Sainsbury, “Rigid frameworks with dilation constraints,” Discrete Mathematics 348(2), 114304 (2025), doi:10.1016/j.disc.2024.114304; see Theorems 4.2–4.3, Example 4.4, and Lemma 5.12.

      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.