ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Working in progress: Orthogonal Representation 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.

working-in-progress-orthogonal-representation-of-graphs-3Representation Theorymath.COmath.RTposed by Alberto Solís Encina, Jose Ramón Portillorecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

If G is a critical graph (not banned) and ρ(G)=d\rho^{\perp}(G)=d , then G-M(G) (with M a match maximal) has ρ(GM(G))d1\rho^{\perp}(G-M(G))\leq d-1

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "Working in progress: Orthogonal Representation of Graphs", 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: Reconstructed statement: for finite simple graphs, let ρ(G)\rho^\perp(G) be the least dd for which vertices can be assigned distinct real projective lines in Rd\mathbb R^d such that two vertices are adjacent iff their lines are orthogonal. A graph is “critical” in the paper’s literal sense if deleting any edge changes ρ\rho^\perp. Interpreting “not banned” as not one of the paper’s space-monopolizing banned graphs with ρ(G)=V(G)\rho^\perp(G)=|V(G)|, Conjecture 3.3 claims:

    If GG is critical, not banned, and ρ(G)=d\rho^\perp(G)=d, then for a maximum matching MM,

    ρ(GM)d1.\rho^\perp(G-M)\le d-1.

    This interpretation is supported by the paper’s examples ρ(C4)=4\rho^\perp(C_4)=4 and ρ(Km,n)=4\rho^\perp(K_{m,n})=4, which force the “distinct projective lines/no proportional vectors” reading.

    Result: The conjecture is false.

    Take G=K3,4G=K_{3,4}. Then ρ(K3,4)=4\rho^\perp(K_{3,4})=4: the two parts must span mutually orthogonal subspaces of dimensions at least 22 and 22, and this is achieved in R4\mathbb R^4.

    Deleting any edge gives K3,4eK_{3,4}-e, and ρ(K3,4e)=5\rho^\perp(K_{3,4}-e)=5. Indeed, suppose K3,4a1b1K_{3,4}-a_1b_1 had a representation in R4\mathbb R^4. Since b2,b3,b4b_2,b_3,b_4 are all orthogonal to a1,a2,a3a_1,a_2,a_3, the span of the aia_i’s has dimension at most 22. Since a2,a3a_2,a_3 are both orthogonal to all bjb_j’s and are not proportional, the span of the bjb_j’s also has dimension at most 22. Hence these two 22-spaces are orthogonal, forcing a1b1a_1\perp b_1, contradicting that a1b1a_1b_1 is the deleted edge. A 55-dimensional representation is given by

    a2=e1,a3=e2,a1=e1+e2+e3,a_2=e_1,\quad a_3=e_2,\quad a_1=e_1+e_2+e_3, b1=e3+e4,b2=e4,b3=e4+e5,b4=e4+2e5.b_1=e_3+e_4,\quad b_2=e_4,\quad b_3=e_4+e_5,\quad b_4=e_4+2e_5.

    Thus K3,4K_{3,4} is critical in the paper’s literal sense and is not banned in the ρ=V\rho^\perp=|V| sense.

    Let M={a1b1,a2b2,a3b3}M=\{a_1b_1,a_2b_2,a_3b_3\}, a maximum matching. Then GMG-M is not representable in R3\mathbb R^3: b4b_4 is adjacent to all aia_i, so the aia_i’s must span a subspace of dimension at most 22. Since the three aia_i’s are pairwise nonadjacent, they are nonproportional, so any two span that same plane. But bib_i must be orthogonal to the other two aa’s and nonorthogonal to aia_i, impossible in R3\mathbb R^3. Therefore

    ρ(GM)4>d1=3.\rho^\perp(G-M)\ge4>d-1=3.

    This contradicts Conjecture 3.3.

    Citation: No prior resolution is needed; this is an explicit counterexample.

    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 is valid under the paper’s faithful/projective orthogonal-representation convention. K3,4K_{3,4} has ρ=4<7\rho^\perp=4<7, so it is not a space-monopolizing banned graph, and the given dimension-counting argument shows deleting any edge is not representable in R4\mathbb R^4, hence K3,4K_{3,4} is critical. For a maximum matching MM, K3,4MK_{3,4}-M is not representable in R3\mathbb R^3, so ρ(K3,4M)4>d1\rho^\perp(K_{3,4}-M)\ge4>d-1. This contradicts Conjecture 3.3.

      Minor note: the displayed 5D representation for K3,4eK_{3,4}-e has a typo (a2a3a_2\perp a_3), but the exact value 55 is not needed for the counterexample and is easily repaired.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new but very minor: it is a small explicit counterexample to an obscure conjecture in an unpublished/working arXiv note, with a short dimension-counting proof. It would not plausibly support a standalone combinatorics paper, except perhaps as a brief erratum/note.

      Literature check: I found no prior published or open-access disproof of Conjecture 3.3 or mention of K3,4K_{3,4} as a counterexample. Searches covered the arXiv record, authors’ GitHub repository, GitHub issue/repository searches, CORE/open-access searches, and related orthogonal-representation/faithful-orthogonal-rank literature. Related papers concern standard orthogonal rank/contextuality invariants, not this “critical graph plus maximum matching” conjecture or this counterexample.

      Citation: Original conjecture: Alberto Solís-Encina and José Ramón Portillo, “Orthogonal Representation of Graphs,” arXiv:1504.03662.

      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.