Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

Lemma 4.1 (p. 5), titled "Projection shadow". Let HH be a Euclidean subspace and let points xc∈Hx_c\in H, c∈Cc\in C, all have squared norm R2R^2. Let xvx_v be a vector of a larger ambient space and u=PHxvu=P_Hx_v its orthogonal projection onto HH. Suppose that for constants α>β\alpha>\beta every c∈Cc\in C has ⟨u,xc⟩=⟨xv,xc⟩∈{α,β}\langle u,x_c\rangle=\langle x_v,x_c\rangle\in\{\alpha,\beta\}. Fix D>0D>0 and choose t>0t>0 with

t2∥u∥2+R2−2tβ=D2.(17)t^2\|u\|^2+R^2-2t\beta=D^2. \tag{17}

Then z=tuz=tu satisfies ∥z−xc∥2=D2−2t(α−β)<D2\|z-x_c\|^2=D^2-2t(\alpha-\beta)<D^2 when ⟨xv,xc⟩=α\langle x_v,x_c\rangle=\alpha, and ∥z−xc∥2=D2\|z-x_c\|^2=D^2 when ⟨xv,xc⟩=β\langle x_v,x_c\rangle=\beta.

The lemma assumes a positive tt satisfying (17); it does not assert that one exists. Section 5 applies it on p. 6, citing it as "theorem 4.1".

Source. Yibo Ji, An AI Generated Counterexample to Borsuk Problem in Dimension 63, arXiv:2608.12561v1 (12 August 2026), withdrawn by version 2 of 14 August 2026; Lemma 4.1 on p. 5. The source card records the withdrawal and provenance.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement was read clause by clause on the PDF.

Proof pointer

Since each xcx_c lies in HH, projecting does not change its inner product with xvx_v. Expanding ∥tu−xc∥2=t2∥u∥2+R2−2t⟨u,xc⟩\|tu-x_c\|^2=t^2\|u\|^2+R^2-2t\langle u,x_c\rangle and substituting (17) gives both cases; the strict inequality uses t>0t>0 and α>β\alpha>\beta (p. 5).

Dependencies

None.

Bears on

  • E0505: only through Theorem 6.2, whose added point is this lemma's zz with R2=15/4R^2=15/4, α=3/4\alpha=3/4, β=−1/4\beta=-1/4 and D2=8D^2=8 (p. 6). The lemma alone says nothing about the number of parts.