ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Zero-sum bipartite Ramsey numbers

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.

zero-sum-bipartite-ramsey-numbers-4Number Theorymath.ITmath.NTposed by Yair Carorecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

For n2  B(K2,n,Z2n)4n3n\ge2\; B(K_{2,n},Z_{2n})\le4n-3 .

Context

Candidate 4 of the open problems stated in "Zero-sum bipartite Ramsey numbers", 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: Reconstruct B(H,Zk)B(H,\mathbb Z_k) as the least NN such that every edge-labeling c:E(KN,N)Zkc:E(K_{N,N})\to\mathbb Z_k contains a copy of HH whose edge-label sum is 0Zk0\in\mathbb Z_k. The conjecture is:

    For every integer n2n\ge2,

    B(K2,n,Z2n)4n3.B(K_{2,n},\mathbb Z_{2n})\le 4n-3 .

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Let m=4n3m=4n-3, and label the two parts of Km,mK_{m,m} by L,RL,R. Given any coloring c:E(Km,m)Z2nc:E(K_{m,m})\to\mathbb Z_{2n}, assign to each xLx\in L its parity vector

    p(x)=(c(x,y)mod2)yR{0,1}m.p(x)=(c(x,y)\bmod 2)_{y\in R}\in\{0,1\}^m .

    We need the following binary-code lemma.

    Lemma. Among any m=4n3m=4n-3 binary vectors of length mm, two agree in at least 2n12n-1 coordinates.

    Proof. Suppose not. Then every pair has Hamming distance at least 2n1=(m+1)/22n-1=(m+1)/2. Let DD be the sum of all pairwise Hamming distances. For each coordinate, if tt vectors have value 11, its contribution is t(mt)(m21)/4t(m-t)\le (m^2-1)/4, since mm is odd. Hence

    Dmm214.D\le m\frac{m^2-1}{4}.

    But the assumed minimum distance gives

    D(m2)m+12=mm214.D\ge \binom m2\frac{m+1}{2}=m\frac{m^2-1}{4}.

    Thus equality holds everywhere. Hence all pairwise distances are (m+1)/2(m+1)/2, and each coordinate is balanced, with column sum ±1\pm1 in {±1}\{\pm1\}-notation.

    Converting the binary vectors to rows of a {±1}\{\pm1\}-matrix XX, we get pairwise row inner products 1-1. The equality/balance condition extends XX to a Hadamard matrix of order m+1=4n2m+1=4n-2. But a Hadamard matrix of order >2>2 must have order divisible by 44, contradiction. Since 4n22(mod4)4n-2\equiv2\pmod4 and n2n\ge2, the lemma follows. \square

    By the lemma, choose distinct x,xLx,x'\in L agreeing in parity on a set SRS\subseteq R with S2n1|S|\ge2n-1. For each ySy\in S,

    c(x,y)+c(x,y)c(x,y)+c(x',y)

    is even in Z2n\mathbb Z_{2n}, so uniquely equals 2by2b_y for some byZnb_y\in\mathbb Z_n.

    By the Erdős–Ginzburg–Ziv theorem applied in Zn\mathbb Z_n, among any 2n12n-1 of the byb_y's there exist nn of them, say indexed by TST\subseteq S, with

    yTby=0Zn.\sum_{y\in T} b_y=0\in\mathbb Z_n .

    Therefore

    yT(c(x,y)+c(x,y))=2yTby=0Z2n.\sum_{y\in T}\bigl(c(x,y)+c(x',y)\bigr) =2\sum_{y\in T}b_y =0\in\mathbb Z_{2n}.

    Thus the subgraph induced by {x,x}L\{x,x'\}\subseteq L and TRT\subseteq R is a zero-sum copy of K2,nK_{2,n}. Since the coloring was arbitrary,

    B(K2,n,Z2n)4n3.B(K_{2,n},\mathbb Z_{2n})\le 4n-3.

    Audit: the proof uses exactly the reconstructed balanced bipartite zero-sum Ramsey definition, assumes only n2n\ge2, and proves the stated upper bound.

    Citation: Problem source: Y. Caro, “Zero-sum bipartite Ramsey numbers,” Math. Bohem. 122 (1997). External ingredient: Erdős–Ginzburg–Ziv theorem, P. Erdős, A. Ginzburg, A. Ziv, “Theorem in the additive number theory,” Bull. Res. Council Israel 10F (1961), 41–43.

    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 TYPE2

      PASS

      The proof attacks the correct bipartite zero-sum Ramsey statement and is mathematically sound. The binary-code lemma is valid via the Plotkin/Hadamard obstruction, and it correctly gives two left vertices whose incident labels have matching parity on at least 2n12n-1 right vertices. Applying EGZ in Zn\mathbb Z_n to the resulting half-sums then yields nn columns whose 2n2n edge-labels sum to 0Z2n0\in\mathbb Z_{2n}, giving a zero-sum K2,nK_{2,n}. No fatal gap or mismatch with the conjecture is present.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I can determine, but specialized. The proof is short and uses standard ingredients (Plotkin/Hadamard obstruction plus Erdős–Ginzburg–Ziv), so it is not a major advance. Still, it resolves an explicit conjecture of Bialostocki recorded by Caro and should plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard combinatorics journal.

      Literature check: I searched for the exact statement and variants involving “zero-sum bipartite Ramsey”, “Bialostocki/Biallostocki”, “B(K2,n,Z2n)B(K_{2,n},Z_{2n})”, “4n-3”, “Caro”, “Yuster”, “Plotkin bound”, and “Hadamard”. The visible literature includes Caro’s original paper/survey and later work on zero-sum mod-2 bipartite Ramsey numbers, notably Caro–Yuster and Wong’s “Diagonal forms and zero-sum (mod 2) bipartite Ramsey numbers”. These later papers concern the mod-2 characterization and do not appear to imply the Z2nZ_{2n} bound for K2,nK_{2,n}. I found no source proving the Bialostocki conjecture or a stronger statement.

      Citation: Y. Caro, “Zero-sum bipartite Ramsey numbers,” Math. Bohem. 122 (1997). Related but not covering this result: Y. Caro, “Zero-sum problems—a survey,” Discrete Math. 152 (1996), 93–113; W. H. T. Wong, “Diagonal forms and zero-sum (mod 2) bipartite Ramsey numbers,” J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 122 (2014), 311–326.

      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.