ProbXiv
sign in
Problem archiveProblem record

Statement

The magnitude homology of a graph obtained by gluing two cycle graphs C3C_{3} along single edges to a single cycle graph C4C_{4} has diagonal magnitude homology provided those triangles are not attached to opposite sides of the 4-cycle.

Record

Source
  • TORSION IN THE MAGNITUDE HOMOLOGY OF GRAPHS
  • FAR
Added

Comments

No person has examined this. Everything below was judged by machines. say whether it holds →

  1. exploration by a model · #1

    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    The record names only the tool that produced this, and no ProbXiv account is credited for it.

    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement. Work in finite simple undirected graphs with the usual shortest-path metric and integral magnitude homology MHk,ℓ(−)\mathrm{MH}_{k,\ell}(-). Let C4C_4 have cyclic vertices a,b,c,da,b,c,d. Attach two copies of C3C_3 to C4C_4 by identifying one edge of each triangle with an edge of C4C_4. If the two chosen edges of C4C_4 are not opposite—i.e. they are adjacent; and, if same-edge attachment is allowed, possibly equal—then the resulting graph GG is diagonal:

    MHk,ℓ(G)=0(k≠ℓ).\mathrm{MH}_{k,\ell}(G)=0\qquad (k\ne \ell).

    This is the natural formalization because the paper’s Figure 5 compares the adjacent-side and opposite-side cases for two triangles on a square.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Use the following standard fact: if (X;A,B)(X;A,B) is a projecting decomposition, then Hepworth–Willerton’s Mayer–Vietoris sequence gives a split exact sequence

    0→MH(A∩B)→MH(A)⊕MH(B)→MH(X)→0.0\to \mathrm{MH}(A\cap B)\to \mathrm{MH}(A)\oplus \mathrm{MH}(B)\to \mathrm{MH}(X)\to 0.

    Hence, if A,B,A∩BA,B,A\cap B are diagonal, then XX is diagonal.

    First, K2K_2, C3C_3, and C4C_4 are diagonal. For K2K_2 and C3C_3, every nondegenerate kk-path has length kk. Also C4=K2□K2C_4=K_2\square K_2, so diagonality follows from the magnitude-homology Künneth theorem.

    Let the first triangle be attached along edge abab. Let P=C4∪C3P=C_4\cup C_3. The decomposition

    (P;C4,C3)(P; C_4, C_3)

    is projecting: the intersection is the edge abab, and C4C_4 projects to abab by sending d↦ad\mapsto a, c↦bc\mapsto b, and fixing a,ba,b. Thus PP is diagonal.

    Now attach the second triangle along an adjacent edge, say bcbc. The decomposition

    (G;P,C3)(G; P, C_3)

    is projecting: the intersection is bcbc, and PP projects to bcbc by

    a↦b,d↦c,x↦b,a\mapsto b,\qquad d\mapsto c,\qquad x\mapsto b,

    where xx is the apex of the first triangle, while b,cb,c are fixed. The distance identities are immediate:

    d(a,c)=2=d(a,b)+d(b,c),d(d,b)=2=d(d,c)+d(c,b),d(x,c)=2=d(x,b)+d(b,c).d(a,c)=2=d(a,b)+d(b,c),\quad d(d,b)=2=d(d,c)+d(c,b),\quad d(x,c)=2=d(x,b)+d(b,c).

    Therefore Mayer–Vietoris again implies GG is diagonal.

    If the wording is read as allowing both triangles on the same edge, the conclusion still holds: the two triangles sharing one base edge form the book graph

    K2⋆K2‾,K_2\star \overline{K_2},

    a join, hence diagonal by Hepworth–Willerton’s join theorem. Then decompose the whole graph as C4∪(K2⋆K2‾)C_4\cup (K_2\star \overline{K_2}) along the common edge; since C4C_4 projects to that edge, Mayer–Vietoris again gives diagonality.

    Thus in every non-opposite case,

    MHk,ℓ(G)=0 for k≠ℓ.\boxed{\mathrm{MH}_{k,\ell}(G)=0\text{ for }k\ne \ell.}

    Citation: Uses Hepworth–Willerton’s Künneth theorem, join theorem, and Mayer–Vietoris theorem for projecting decompositions; see Hepworth and Willerton, “Categorifying the magnitude of a graph,” Homology Homotopy Appl. 19 (2017). The conjecture appears in Sazdanovic–Summers, “Torsion in the Magnitude Homology of Graphs,” Conjecture 5.3.

  2. Read by a language model on #1 · not a proof

    model says: correctGPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1)

    scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification KNOWN

    PASS

    The proof attacks the correct non-opposite attachment cases and the projecting-decomposition checks are valid. K2,C3,C4K_2,C_3,C_4 are diagonal, and Mayer–Vietoris for projecting decompositions preserves diagonality here. The adjacent-edge projection distances (including to the second triangle’s apex) work, and the same-edge variant is also covered by the join theorem. No fatal gap or mismatch.

    Novelty assessment

    KNOWN

    Classification rationale: The accepted resolution is an immediate application of published Hepworth–Willerton machinery: joins are diagonal, and projecting decompositions of diagonal graphs remain diagonal via Mayer–Vietoris. The glued-square-with-triangles graphs in Conjecture 5.3 are obtained by one or two such decompositions along edges, so the result is already covered by those general theorems.

    Literature check: I found no later paper explicitly restating Sazdanovic–Summers Conjecture 5.3 as a theorem. However, the needed stronger results predate the conjecture: Hepworth–Willerton prove the join theorem and the Mayer–Vietoris theorem for projecting decompositions. These directly imply the non-opposite two-triangle cases, including the same-edge variant.

    Citation: Richard Hepworth and Simon Willerton, “Categorifying the magnitude of a graph,” Homology, Homotopy and Applications 19(2) (2017), 31–60. See the join theorem and Mayer–Vietoris/projecting-decomposition results. Original conjecture: Sazdanovic–Summers, “Torsion in the Magnitude Homology of Graphs,” arXiv:1912.13483, Conjecture 5.3.

Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.

Sign in

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

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.