Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let be the complete -partite -uniform hypergraph with vertices in each class.
Is it true that
for all ?
Let be the complete -partite -uniform hypergraph with vertices in each class.
Is it true that
for all with ?
Source: erdosproblems.com/1158
No claim settles this problem.
Open. The site records the exponent as known only for and , which agrees with every source on this page: for graphs () the Kővári--Sós--Turán exponent is attained for and , the subject of Problem 714. These settle the instances and of the statement in the affirmative, through the refereed results recorded as accepted partial claims of Problem 714: Brown 1966 for and , and Erdős, Rényi and Sós 1966 and Kővári, Sós and Turán 1954 for . They have no claim page here because the site routes the case to Problem 714 and credits no source for it on this page; as partial results they leave this problem open. For no pair is known to attain the exponent . The best general lower bounds recorded here are for the box problem : Corollary 1 of [CPZ21] (result page), for every , from random multilinear maps, against the asked exponent (the two agree only for ; for the bound is against the asked ), and Theorem 3.2 of [Go23] (result page), an explicit construction with , matching the Conlon--Pohoata--Zakharov exponent for . For unbalanced parts the exponent is attained once the last part is large (leads below), which does not cover the balanced . No construction reaching for any , no disproof, and no proof claim was found in the search whose scope the Current assessment records. This is a bounded negative finding, not a certificate of openness.
The site's wording quantifies over every and and fails at : the forbidden graph is a single edge, so , while the right side is positive for every . For each the failure lies at the smallest value of , and the site's wording gives no range, so it is a boundary failure. The change inserts the words "with " after "for all "; nothing else changes. The evidence is the poser's own statement of the bound the question asks about: Theorem 1 of [Er64f] (p. 185), "Let , ", with the uniformity and the class size, so its is the site's , and the question asks whether the exponent of that theorem is sharp. The booklet item [Va99] 3.65 that the site cites asks about "the 1962 bound of Erdős" without a range, so the defect is the site's and the booklet's, not Erdős's. The site's commentary, which calls the exponent known for and , and the formal-conjectures statement, which asks the question for and counts with the site, agree with the change. The change leaves unrestricted; for and the inequality holds trivially, since . The form rests on these sources alone. No result concerns the site's wording at , and the corrected Statement is open.