Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Published p. 232, the radius calculation after Lemma 3.12 and Lemma 3.13; the squared-length correction is explained below. (canonical PDF).
As printed (p. 232): for every integer there is such that every -regular simplex with circumradius is -hyper Ramsey for every . Definition 3.1 needs , so only positive such are meant. The printed derivation of this threshold treats a squared-distance bound as an edge length (see Source precision). The conclusion itself is not false: the repaired proof of Theorem 3.3 on this card, which does not use the printed threshold, makes every simplex -hyper Ramsey for every . The main proof needs an explicit threshold, and this card uses the corrected one below.
Corrected form proved here. Let and . A -regular simplex is -hyper-Ramsey whenever
The threshold on the right is strictly positive, and equality is allowed. This is the sufficient corrected version of the source's radius estimate.
Proof.
Lemma 3.12 places a congruent copy of in a box with
The first inequality follows by projecting the box's containing center onto the affine span of the selected subset. In particular, the displayed threshold is positive.
For any allowed , set
Theorem 3.2 makes hyper-Ramsey, so take its witnesses at positive squared slack . They lie exactly on for every large . A dense subset of one of these witnesses contains and therefore contains . These same witnesses prove that is -hyper-Ramsey at its own squared slack . The strict gap above also handles equality in the allowed bound for .
Source precision.
Definition 3.11 bounds squared distances by . The source's following paragraph uses that quantity as an edge length and obtains , leading to the printed budget . With this definition of , the actual edge length bound is . The calculation in Lemma 3.12 gives the sufficient budget used here. This is a proved local repair of the estimate, not an author-issued erratum or a claim that the printed lemma's ultimate hyper-Ramsey conclusion is false. The repaired main proof chooses smaller accordingly.
No unrestricted hyper-Ramsey inheritance by subsets is asserted: the radius here is explicitly large enough for the whole containing box.
Bears on. #174.