Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Lemma 2 (p. 3). Stated inside the proof of Theorem 1, for the sets and the finite group of that theorem, which stay fixed throughout: "Suppose that there exists for which Theorem 1 is true. Then, for any Theorem 1 is also true. In other words, the set [sic] is subtransitive, and if is soluble, then is subsoluble."
The in the definition of is a misprint for ; the proof uses . In the corpus's words: if the prism is subtransitive (subsoluble when is soluble) for some , then so is for every .
Source. M.-R. Ivan, I. Leader and M. Walters, Generalised Prisms and Euclidean Ramsey Theory, arXiv:2606.13472v1 (11 June 2026), Lemma 2, p. 3; proof pp. 3–4.
Read depth. Claims checked: statement read clause by clause on the PDF; the proof read in full.
Proof pointer
Take a finite transitive set containing a copy of the prism at height , and form the two-level product with . It is transitive under the product of 's group with , and it contains a copy of the prism at height , because the cross distances gain exactly .
Two details of the printed proof (pp. 3–4) are read here as follows. The proof takes , so the case is the hypothesis itself. In the soluble case it says " is soluble" of the full symmetry group of ; what the argument needs, and what subsolubility supplies, is some soluble group acting transitively on , and the product of that group with is soluble. Neither point changes the statement. The proof never uses beyond the hypothesis on .
Dependencies
None outside the paper; the group facts used are recorded on the elementary-facts page.
Bears on
- Problem 174: a step in the proof of Theorem 1; it bears on the problem only through that theorem.