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.
Statement
If G is a critical graph (not banned) and , then G-M(G) (with M a match maximal) has
Context
Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "Working in progress: Orthogonal Representation 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: Reconstructed statement: for finite simple graphs, let be the least for which vertices can be assigned distinct real projective lines in 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 . Interpreting “not banned” as not one of the paper’s space-monopolizing banned graphs with , Conjecture 3.3 claims:
If is critical, not banned, and , then for a maximum matching ,
This interpretation is supported by the paper’s examples and , which force the “distinct projective lines/no proportional vectors” reading.
Result: The conjecture is false.
Take . Then : the two parts must span mutually orthogonal subspaces of dimensions at least and , and this is achieved in .
Deleting any edge gives , and . Indeed, suppose had a representation in . Since are all orthogonal to , the span of the ’s has dimension at most . Since are both orthogonal to all ’s and are not proportional, the span of the ’s also has dimension at most . Hence these two -spaces are orthogonal, forcing , contradicting that is the deleted edge. A -dimensional representation is given by
Thus is critical in the paper’s literal sense and is not banned in the sense.
Let , a maximum matching. Then is not representable in : is adjacent to all , so the ’s must span a subspace of dimension at most . Since the three ’s are pairwise nonadjacent, they are nonproportional, so any two span that same plane. But must be orthogonal to the other two ’s and nonorthogonal to , impossible in . Therefore
This contradicts Conjecture 3.3.
Citation: No prior resolution is needed; this is an explicit counterexample.
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 valid under the paper’s faithful/projective orthogonal-representation convention. has , so it is not a space-monopolizing banned graph, and the given dimension-counting argument shows deleting any edge is not representable in , hence is critical. For a maximum matching , is not representable in , so . This contradicts Conjecture 3.3.
Minor note: the displayed 5D representation for has a typo (), but the exact value 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 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 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.