Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Claim. Day and Johnson's Corollary 6 (arXiv:1602.07607v2, pp. 5--6): for every integer t≥2t\ge2, if n≥c 2(t2−3t+2)/2n\ge c\,2^{(t^2-3t+2)/2} with c=∏i≥0(1+2−i)≈4.7685c=\prod_{i\ge0}(1+2^{-i})\approx4.7685, then some nn-coloring of the edges of K2n+1K_{2^n+1} has no monochromatic odd cycle of length at most 2t2^t. In the notation of Problem 609 this gives f(n)>2tf(n)>2^t for all such nn; the paper's restatement on p. 6 gives odd girth at least 22log⁡2n−c02^{\sqrt{2\log_2n-c_0}} for a constant c0c_0 and all large nn, so f(n)≥22log⁡2n−O(1)f(n)\ge2^{\sqrt{2\log_2n}-O(1)}. In particular f(n)→∞f(n)\to\infty, which the paper's Theorem 2 (p. 2) also states directly: for every rr some number nn of colors admits an nn-coloring of K2n+1K_{2^n+1} whose monochromatic odd cycles all have length at least rr. This answers yes the question, recorded in the site's commentary from Chung, whether f(n)→∞f(n)\to\infty. The colorings are built inductively from the paper's rooted round colorings, which pass from K2n+1K_{2^n+1} to K2n+1+1K_{2^{n+1}+1} with one more color. The paper is A. N. Day and J. R. Johnson, Multicolour Ramsey numbers of odd cycles, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 124 (2017), 56--63, DOI 10.1016/j.jctb.2016.12.005, the site's [DaJo17]; its first arXiv version is dated 24 February 2016, the date this page carries, and the publisher's record dates the issue to May 2017. It is paged on the library's source card, whose locators refer to arXiv version 2.

Covers. The lower bound f(n)≥22log⁡2n−O(1)f(n)\ge2^{\sqrt{2\log_2n}-O(1)} and Chung's question whether f(n)→∞f(n)\to\infty, answered yes. Not covered: the growth order of f(n)f(n), the problem's question, since the known upper bounds are exponential in nn.

Depends on. No page of this wiki.

Acceptance. Refereed: the paper appeared in the Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, volume 124. The site labels the problem OPEN, so its commentary crediting Day and Johnson is not an acceptance, and no reviewed evidence is listed.

Read depth. The statements of Theorem 2 and Corollary 6 and the consequence stated on p. 6 are checked in arXiv version 2; the proofs were not reconstructed.