Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Claim. There is an absolute constant such that, for every , the edge set of every simple graph on vertices has a partition into at most parts, each the edge set of a simple cycle of the graph or a single edge of it. In the notation of Problem 184, for every , so and the problem's question is answered yes. This is Theorem 1.1 of OpenAI, A linear cycle-and-edge decomposition of every graph, a preprint of the OpenAI mathematics release dated 24 September 2026 (the claim's date), carded in the library at its card and stated on its result page; its Corollary 1.2 gives the Eulerian form (every graph with all degrees even partitions into at most cycles). The manuscript places itself after the of Erdős and Gallai, the of Conlon, Fox and Sudakov and the of Bucić and Montgomery, and builds on the last paper's expansion and routing method through a multiscale induction; the constant is fixed last in the proof and is not made explicit. The order is sharp: trees need parts and complete bipartite graphs force , as the problem page records.
Depends on. Nothing in this wiki. The manuscript proves its lemmas itself, adapting and reproving lemmas of Bucić and Montgomery and of Conlon, Fox and Sudakov; its external theorem inputs are Lovász (1968), Theorem 1, and the Aharoni--Haxell theorem in the form of Bucić and Montgomery's Theorem 6, and the second part of Corollary 1.2 also cites Girão, Granet, Kühn and Osthus.
Acceptance. Formalized only. The release's Lean tree (the lean/
folder at the pinned revision linked above) declares, in the namespace
OAI.ErdosGallai, the definitions CycleOrSingleEdge (a set of edges that
is the edge set of a cycle walk of or a single edge of ) and
EdgeDecomposition (a family of such sets, pairwise disjoint, with union
the edge set of ), the proposition MainStatement (some real such
that for every and every SimpleGraph (Fin n) there is with an
EdgeDecomposition into parts) and the theorem erdos_gallai : MainStatement. The comparator challenge
lean/ComparatorChallenges/CycleDecomposition.lean pins the statement: it
states these declarations with the theorem left open, and the solution module
of the release proves it. The corpus's verification of 2026-10-07 built the
declarations from the release's tree at the pinned revision, printed the
axioms of erdos_gallai and found exactly propext, Classical.choice and
Quot.sound, compared the challenge text with the solution's copies of the
statement and found them identical in the same namespace with the same opens,
and audited the whole formal statement for fidelity, the statement audit
that formalized requires and the corpus's own work, not an outside review:
in the pinned Mathlib a cycle walk is a closed trail without repeated vertices,
so each part is a simple cycle of length at least three or one edge; the parts
are nonempty and disjoint, so counts the pieces; the constant is chosen
before and the graph, so it is absolute; and no definition in the import
chain redefines a name the statement uses. The audit found no hidden
hypothesis or trivializing reading. One for all is the problem's
, since small orders are covered by single edges either way, and
simple cycles are the strictest reading of the problem's "cycles". That
audit concerns the formal statement and the kernel-checked proof. Not
reviewed: no outside reviewer or documented independent acceptance is
recorded, and the corpus's own verification record counts as neither. Not
refereed: the informal manuscript's proof (Sections 2--7) was read for
structure only, and no refereed publication, arXiv version or outside review
of either is known. The release's own README says that its
manuscripts were produced by an internal OpenAI model and are at different
stages of verification, not all with Lean formalizations.
Relation to other statements. The formal-conjectures file 184.lean
states the problem as Erdos184.erdos_184, with a function and
decompositions into subgraphs that are connected and -regular or have one
edge; the release's statement is a different formalization of the same
question, and no Lean bridge between the two has been built. A second full
claim, a Lean proof of the formal-conjectures statement itself, is recorded on
its own claim page
as claimed.