Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Status
On this page
Status
Topics
Let be a connected graph with vertices, minimum degree , and diameter . Show if that contains no and then
and if contains no and then
Two questions, as the site's commentary reads the display. Let be a connected graph with vertices, minimum degree , and diameter . (i) If contains no and , is ? (ii) If contains no and , is ? Each part is asked for every (part (i) is empty at ), with allowed to depend on and ; the problem is settled when both parts are.
Source: erdosproblems.com/612
A full solution has been claimed but not yet accepted. The statement is false.
The site labels the problem OPEN. Read as the two questions of the Statement (precise), part (i) is disproved and part (ii) is open. Part (i) is false: for every and every with by Theorem 6 of the arXiv preprint of Czabarka, Singgih and Székely (its Section 3, published as J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 151 (2021), 38--45, refereed; the published numbering is unchecked), the accepted claim page of Czabarka, Singgih and Székely, and at , by the claimed page of Cambie and Jooken (2025 preprint). Part (ii) is proved for by Theorem 2 of Erdős, Pach, Pollack and Tuza (the accepted partial claim page Erdős, Pach, Pollack and Tuza, refereed) and undecided for in the refereed sources cited here; September 2026 forum posts report a preprint refuting it for every and Lean-checked, AI-assisted arguments that it holds for and fails for , recorded on the claimed pages of Chen and Chen (part (ii) for every and every large divisible by , preprint) and Kitamura (part (ii) refuted at , , for every additive constant, and proved at ; Lean files). The frontmatter standing is derived from the claim pages: part (i) is settled by the accepted refutation, and part (ii) only by these pending refutations, so the problem is claimed, disproved. This standing departs from the site's OPEN only by counting those pending refutations, which no outside review has accepted; it agrees with the label that no accepted claim settles part (ii), and it becomes solved, disproved if either refutation of part (ii) is accepted.
The site's wording displays two bounds under one 'Show if that', the Conjecture of Erdős, Pach, Pollack and Tuza (1989, pp. 78--79), stated there for natural numbers . Read as one statement, it is a conjunction over all and all admissible , and it is false: Theorem 6 of Czabarka, Singgih and Székely (J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 151 (2021), refereed) gives, for every and every large divisible by , connected -free graphs of diameter , above the first bound; Cambie and Jooken (2025 preprint) add , . The site cites both results in its commentary, calls the first a disproof 'for the case of -free graphs', and keeps the label OPEN while presenting the amended conjecture of Czabarka, Singgih and Székely as the live question. The page follows that reading: the display is two questions, part (i) for -free and part (ii) for -free graphs, and the problem is settled only when both are. Under the site's wording, read as one conjunction, the problem is disproved; under the site's reading part (i) is disproved and part (ii) is open, proved at by Theorem 2 of the 1989 paper, with unreviewed claims that it holds at and fails at (Kitamura's Lean files, not built here) and fails for every (Chen and Chen's preprint, cited from its abstract). If any of those refutations is accepted, part (ii) and so the whole problem is disproved under both readings. The curator has not stated this reading in the thread; it is inferred from the label and the commentary.