Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let denote the minimal such that if the edges of are -coloured then there must be a monochromatic copy of . Show that
Let denote the minimal such that if the edges of are -coloured then there must be a monochromatic copy of . Show that for every
Source: erdosproblems.com/556
No claim settles this problem.
Decidable, in the site's label (page last edited 8 February 2026), which the site defines as resolved up to a finite check; the label describes the corrected Statement, which excludes . The frontmatter standing, derived from the claim pages, judges the corrected Statement and is open: the partial claim pages Kohayakawa, Simonovits and Skokan 2005 and Jenssen and Skokan 2016 cover all large odd , and Benevides and Skokan 2008 all large even , while the from up to the two unnamed thresholds remain open. The Benevides--Skokan and Jenssen--Skokan pages are accepted on their refereed journal publications; the Kohayakawa--Simonovits--Skokan page is claimed, since its full proof is an unrefereed research report and its proceedings abstract is not shown to have been refereed. The curator's credit to Kohayakawa, Simonovits and Skokan and to Benevides and Skokan is recorded on their pages and is not acceptance evidence, because the site's label DECIDABLE does not mark the problem settled.
The site's wording quantifies over every cycle length and fails at : , so , which is . The strict inequality is elementary: two copies of the two-colored without a monochromatic triangle (the pentagon in one color, the pentagram in the other), joined by all crossing edges in the third color, give a -coloring of with no monochromatic triangle, checked over all triples, so . A comment of 13 July 2026 by KentaKitamura in the site's discussion thread records the same failure. It is the only recorded failure: the values listed in OEIS A389335 give the inequality for , and the theorems below give it for all large . The change inserts the words "for every " before the display; nothing else changes. The defect is already in the poser's text: Erdős's own statements of the conjecture, [Er81] Part V, display (3), p. 9 of the re-typeset copy, and [Er81c] display (15), printed p. 13, print with no restriction on , and each adds only that the bound, if true, is best possible for odd ; the site reproduces that wording. The threshold is the literature's statement of the conjecture as Bondy and Erdős's: [KSS05] p. 2, display (2), "Bondy and Erdős [4] conjectured that if is odd, then ", and [BeSk09] p. 2, display (1), which states the same equality for odd ; both papers settle only large , so neither settles the corrected Statement. The corrected Statement is a combined form: the literature's "", kept for even as Erdős's bound and the site's are; it is the form OEIS A389335 prints, " for ". The form rests on these sources alone, not on which results settle it. The one result about the site's wording alone is the value of R. E. Greenwood and A. M. Gleason, Combinatorial relations and chromatic graphs, Canad. J. Math. 7 (1955), 1--7, doi:10.4153/CJM-1955-001-4; it is correct, but it answers the site's wording (every ), not the corrected Statement (every ), so it does not count toward the problem's standing; it is credited here and on its rejected claim page, Greenwood and Gleason 1955. The problem's standing judges the corrected Statement.