Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

Theorem 7 (p. 13). "There exists a 2nm2nm-fold colouring with 2⌈(b+1)2n⌉⌈(b+1)2m3⌉2\lceil(b+1)2n\rceil\lceil(b+1)\frac{2m}{3}\rceil colours of the graph G[1,b]G_{[1,b]} i.e. χ2nm(G[1,b])2nm≤2⌈3(b+1)2n3⌉⌈(b+1)2m3⌉2nm\frac{\chi_{2nm}(G_{[1,b]})}{2nm}\le\frac{2\lceil\sqrt3(b+1)\frac{2n}{3}\rceil\lceil(b+1)\frac{2m}{3}\rceil}{2nm} [sic]."

The two expressions in the statement differ: the first factor is ⌈(b+1)2n⌉\lceil(b+1)2n\rceil in the colour count and ⌈3(b+1)2n3⌉\lceil\sqrt3(b+1)\frac{2n}{3}\rceil in the ratio. The proof (pp. 14-15) ends with 2⌈(b+1)2m3⌉⋅⌈3(b+1)2n3⌉2\lceil(b+1)\frac{2m}{3}\rceil\cdot\lceil\sqrt3(b+1)\frac{2n}{\sqrt3}\rceil colours, which equals the first count, and Table 2 (p. 15) agrees with the first count (for b=1b=1, n=m=1n=m=1 it lists 1616 colours, where the ratio's form would give 1212). This page reads the theorem as the first count, the ratio's 2n3\frac{2n}{3} standing for 2n3\frac{2n}{\sqrt3}; this is a filing observation, not a review verdict.

The statement does not quantify nn, mm or bb; the proof treats nn and mm as positive integers, and section 2 (p. 5) reduces the graphs studied to G[1,b]G_{[1,b]} with b≥1b\ge1. Here G[1,b]G_{[1,b]} joins two points of the plane whose distance lies in [1,b][1,b], and χj\chi_j is the jj-fold chromatic number (Definition 2, p. 4).

For G[1,1]G_{[1,1]} the paper tabulates (Table 2, p. 15) k=16k=16, 2424, 3232, 4848, 5656, 6464 colours for j=2nm=2j=2nm=2, 44, 66, 88, 1010, 1212, and says (p. 16) that for G[1,2]G_{[1,2]} the method of Theorem 7 does not give good results.

Source. J. Grytczuk, K. Junosza-Szaniawski, J. Sokół, K. Węsek, Fractional and jj-fold coloring of the plane, Discrete Comput. Geom. 55 (2016), 594-609, doi:10.1007/s00454-016-9769-3; read in arXiv:1506.01887v2 (5 October 2015), Theorem 7 on p. 13 and its proof on pp. 13-15 of that version. The source card records the edition.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement was read clause by clause on the print, and every Table 2 count for the 2nm2nm method was recomputed from the first count. The proof was read for structure only.

Proof pointer

pp. 13-15. Start from the tiling by hexagons of side 1/21/2 and form nmnm translated grids, shifted down a column by multiples of 1m[0,−3/2]\frac1m[0,-3/2] and along a row by multiples of 1n[3/2,0]\frac1n[\sqrt3/2,0]. The next same-colour hexagon in a column lies ⌈(b+1)2m3⌉\lceil(b+1)\frac{2m}{3}\rceil rows away, at centre distance at least b+1b+1, and in a row ⌈(b+1)2n⌉\lceil(b+1)2n\rceil hexagons away, at centre distance at least 3(b+1)\sqrt3(b+1); these two are then at least 2b+22b+2 apart, leaving room for a second family of nmnm grids shifted into the gaps, which doubles both the fold number and the row count.

Dependencies

The method combines the two-layer construction of Theorem 4 with that of Theorem 6 (p. 13); it does not use either as a lemma.

Bears on

  • Problem 508: the problem asks for the chromatic number of G[1,1]G_{[1,1]}. At b=1b=1 Theorem 7 bounds 2nm2nm-fold chromatic numbers of G[1,1]G_{[1,1]} from above, at best the ratio 32/6≈5.3332/6\approx5.33 in the paper's Table 2; it gives no bound on the chromatic number itself.