Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let denote the size Ramsey number, the minimal number of edges such that there is a graph with edges such that in any -colouring of the edges of there is a monochromatic copy of .
Is it true that, if is the path of length , then
and
Is it true that, if is the cycle with edges, then
Source: erdosproblems.com/720
An accepted solution exists. Settled in another form, for example when its parts resolve differently or the question is open-ended.
The site labels the problem PROVED, a label that attaches to the resolution of the problem: the answers are no to (i) and yes to (ii) and (iii), because both size Ramsey numbers are linear. Paths: Beck [Be83b] proved for large ; the paper is not held, and the bound is quoted from the introduction of the refereed paper [JKOP19] (p. 2), from Beck's own 1990 sequel [Be90] (p. 34) and from Erdős's report of 1982 [Er82e] (p. 70); [DrPe22] (p. 1) attests only that Beck's bound is linear, without the constant. Cycles: the first published proof of in the sources read is Corollary 11 (Haxell, Kohayakawa and Łuczak 1995) of [HKL95] (Combin. Probab. Comput. 4 (1995), refereed), which gives the induced and multicolor bound ; that paper's preprint attributes the plain linear bound to Bollobás, Burr and an unnamed third person, named Reimer in the published abstract, as a personal communication of November 1992, while [Er82e] credits Beck with as an unpublished result in 1982, which is the site's attribution. The site's label PROVED belongs to this resolution and is recorded here; the first question's answer is no. The frontmatter standing derives from the claim pages Beck 1983 (the path bound, covering (i) and (ii); the site also credits the paper with the cycle bound, which the sources read do not attest, so the page does not claim it) and Haxell, Kohayakawa and Łuczak 1995 (the induced bound for cycles, with the induced paths it gives, answering all three questions), which record the results, their postings and their acceptance evidence. The frontmatter lists the three questions as the problem's parts. Haxell, Kohayakawa and Łuczak's accepted full claim answers all three, and Beck's accepted partial claim answers (i) and (ii), so the derived standing is solved. The derived claim is answered, because the answers are no to (i) and yes to (ii) and (iii). Erdős offered a prize for a proof or disproof of the pair (i)--(ii) in [Er81], p. 9 of the re-typeset copy, after offering separate prizes for each and for an asymptotic formula in [Er78], p. 33.