Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Claim. Both constants in the known bounds on F(n)F(n) of Problem 1182 are improved: F(n)≥n+⌊(n−1)/6⌋F(n)\ge n+\lfloor(n-1)/6\rfloor for every n≥4n\ge4, where the 1980 theorem of Burr, Erdős, Faudree, Rousseau and Schelp gives (17n+1)/15(17n+1)/15, and F(n)≤11n/2F(n)\le11n/2, sharpened to F(n)≤5.03nF(n)\le5.03n, for all large nn, where Brandt gives 84n84n.

The lower bound reuses the 1980 argument, which strips a sparse connected graph down to a dense core and bounds the Ramsey number of the core, and feeds it Sidorenko's theorem R(K3,H)≤2e(H)+1R(K_3,H)\le2e(H)+1, a sharper input than the 1980 paper had; with it the arithmetic tolerates a core of up to 6k6k edges whenever k≤(n−1)/6k\le(n-1)/6, and every connected graph with at most n+⌊(n−1)/6⌋n+\lfloor(n-1)/6\rfloor edges stays triangle-good.

The upper bound exhibits, for large nn, connected graphs with about 11n/211n/2 edges that are not triangle-good, namely almost all 1111-regular graphs HH on nn vertices. The witness coloring of K2n−1K_{2n-1} takes a balanced blow-up of C5C_5, which has no triangle, as its red graph; HH is a blue subgraph exactly when its vertices can be partitioned into the five blow-up classes, each of size at most ⌈(2n−1)/5⌉\lceil(2n-1)/5\rceil, with no edge of HH joining two classes consecutive on the pentagon. The claimant computes the expected number of such partitions of a random dd-regular graph as exp⁡(nmax⁡Ψd+o(n))\exp(n\max\Psi_d+o(n)) for an explicit function Ψd\Psi_d and shows max⁡Ψ11≤−0.05\max\Psi_{11}\le-0.05 by a branch-and-bound search over the domain of Ψ11\Psi_{11} in exact arithmetic, pruned by a dual bound and a convexity argument; the expectation then tends to zero, so almost every 1111-regular graph has no blue copy and R(K3,H)>2n−1R(K_3,H)>2n-1. For the 5.03n5.03n bound a random 1010-regular graph with 0.03n0.03n random edges added takes the place of HH; the claimant notes that d=10d=10 alone falls short and that about 5.02n5.02n is the method's limit.

Submission note. Posted to erdosproblems.com as a proof claim by Pravar Kataria (account pravarkataria) on 29 September 2026, giving "Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic)" as the AI used:

Improved constants: n+⌊(n−1)/6⌋≤F(n)n+\lfloor (n-1)/6\rfloor \le F(n) for n≥4n\ge4, and F(n)≤11n/2F(n)\le 11n/2 (indeed ≤5.03n\le 5.03n) for large nn; the page records 17n/1517n/15 and 84n84n. Lower bound: the [BEFRS80] reduction leaves a core with at most 6k6k edges; Sidorenko's R(K3,H)≤2e(H)+1R(K_3,H)\le 2e(H)+1 replaces their weaker bound, so 12k+1≤2n−112k+1\le 2n-1 for k≤(n−1)/6k\le (n-1)/6. Upper bound: HH embeds in the complement of the balanced C5C_5 blow-up on 2n−12n-1 vertices iff V(H)V(H) splits into five classes of size ≤⌈(2n−1)/5⌉\le\lceil(2n-1)/5\rceil with no edge between classes adjacent in C5C_5. For a random dd-regular graph the expected number of splittings is enmax⁡Ψd+o(n)e^{n\max\Psi_d+o(n)}; a dual bound plus convexity gives a branch and bound certifying Ψ11≤−0.05\Psi_{11}\le-0.05 (exact arithmetic). So a random 11-regular graph is a.a.s. not good. Notes: AI use: the arguments, code and write-up were produced by Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) under my direction. I have reviewed them and re-run the certificate myself. Unrefereed; corrections welcome, as is a pointer if either bound is already known. A random 10-regular graph plus 0.03n random edges gives 5.03n; d = 10 alone fails (exponent about +0.003), so about 5.02n is the limit of the method. The note's appendix gives the certificate algorithm, full output and rounding argument. Code, results, logs: https://github.com/Sovi11/erdos-1182; key check: python code/certify_exact.py 11 0.401 0.05 (about 30 s).

Covers. The constants: if the claim holds, 7/6≤lim inf⁡F(n)/n7/6\le\liminf F(n)/n and lim sup⁡F(n)/n≤5.03\limsup F(n)/n\le5.03, against the 17/1517/15 and 8484 of the problem page, and the closing question's negative answer follows again, independently of Brandt 1996; as on that page, the claim value follows the closing question's polarity, a no to "is it true that F(n)/n→∞F(n)/n\to\infty?". The order of f(n)f(n) and the exact growth of F(n)F(n) are not addressed.

Depends on. Burr, Erdős, Faudree, Rousseau and Schelp 1980 for the reduction the lower bound reuses; the lower bound also rests on Sidorenko's theorem, the upper bound on the certificate in the repository.

Standing. Claimed. The page rests on the repository's README and the proof claim; the note itself is not compiled and the certificate was not re-run, so no evidence kind is listed. The claim's notes declare that the arguments, code and write-up were produced by Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) under the author's direction, who reviewed them and re-ran the certificate, and that the work is unrefereed; that is provenance only. The claim has no comments, and the site's label (OPEN) and commentary are unchanged. The repository was created on 28 September 2026, the date this page is named by; the claimant's thread comment of the same day reports that both functions are tabulated exactly for n≤12n\le12 from the Ramsey numbers of Brandt, Brinkmann and Harmuth, All Ramsey numbers r(K3,G)r(K_3,G) for connected graphs of order 9, Electron. J. Combin. 5 (1998), R7 (cited from the journal's record; its abstract gives r(K3,G)r(K_3,G) for every connected graph of order 99 and for some graphs up to order 1212, and the comment's reading of its tables is unchecked against the paper), with an independent recomputation through n=9n=9 and certificates for F(13)≤24F(13)\le24 through F(18)≤44F(18)\le44. That literature pointer and those computations are not part of the proof claim and are not carded here.