Structural Properties and Labeling of 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
Open problem: • for
Context
Candidate 9 of the open problems stated in "Structural Properties and Labeling of 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: Let denote the path on vertices. The reconstructed assertion is:
For every and each , the disconnected graph
admits a super -edge-antimagic total labeling for some integer .
Here a super -edge-antimagic total labeling of a -graph is a bijection
such that and the edge-weights
are exactly
Result: The reconstructed universal existence statement is false. Already for and , no such labeling exists.
For ,
so , . In a super labeling the vertex labels are and the edge labels are .
If a super -edge-antimagic total labeling existed, its three edge-weights would be
The smallest possible edge-weight is
and the largest possible edge-weight is
Since the required weight span is , equality must hold throughout, so the edge of weight must use vertex labels and edge label , while the edge of weight must use vertex labels and edge label .
The remaining edge label is , and the remaining weight must be . Hence the remaining edge would need its two endpoint labels to sum to
But after using the disjoint vertex-label pairs and , the only unused vertex label is . In , the remaining edge is incident to one vertex from either or , so its vertex-label sum is one of
namely or , never . Contradiction.
Thus has no super -edge-antimagic total labeling. Therefore the claimed existence for all and is false.
Citation: No literature citation is needed; the counterexample above is a direct finite verification.
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 is rigorous. For , the weight span forces the weights to be exactly , so the minimum and maximum weights force endpoint-label pairs and with edge labels and . In , the remaining edge must then use label and vertex label with one endpoint from one of those pairs, giving endpoint sum or , never the required . Thus no such labeling exists for this parameter case, disproving the universal existence claim.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: This is an elementary finite counterexample: has no super -edge-antimagic total labeling. Even if unnoticed, it only refutes a universal-existence reading of the table entry and does not resolve the full , family. It is not substantial enough for a standalone paper.
Literature check: I found no prior source explicitly recording this counterexample. Searches for variants of , , “super -edge-antimagic total labeling,” and related disconnected-graph labeling papers led back to the original Dafik–Miller–Ryan–Bača work and general graph-labeling literature, but no statement covering this nonexistence result.
Citation: No prior citation for the counterexample found. Background: Dafik, M. Miller, J. Ryan, M. Bača, “On super -edge-antimagic total labeling of disconnected graphs,” Discrete Mathematics 309 (2009), 4909–4915, DOI: 10.1016/j.disc.2008.04.031.
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.