---

Claim. Every tournament on $14$ vertices contains a transitive subtournament on $5$ vertices (Theorem 4, printed p. 235), so $f(14)\ge5$, while the conjectured formula of Problem 1216 gives $\lfloor\log_214\rfloor+1=4$; one such $n$ refutes the formula, so the answer to the question is no. The paper also gives a $13$-vertex tournament with no transitive $5$-subtournament (pp. 235--236), so $f(14)=5$ exactly and the directed Ramsey number $R(5)$ is $14$, and its Corollary 2 (p. 235) gives $f(n)\ge\lfloor\log_2(16n/7)\rfloor$ for every $n\ge14$, which exceeds $\lfloor\log_2n\rfloor+1$ for $n$ in $[7\cdot2^j,2^{j+3})$ for each $j\ge1$. The paper states the conjecture in the equivalent form that for each $k$ some tournament on $2^{k-1}-1$ vertices has no transitive $k$-subtournament and shows it false for every $k\ge5$. The source is the library's source card, for the publisher's open-archive version. What the disproof leaves open, the exact value of $f(n)$ for $34\le n\le46$ and from $n=57$ on and the asymptotic constant between $1$ and $2$, is recorded on the problem page and is not part of this claim.

Depends on. Nothing in this wiki; the result is the paper's own theorem.

Dating. The page is dated by the issue month of the journal record (J. Combinatorial Theory 9 (1970), no. 3, October 1970, per the Crossref record); the day in the page name is a placeholder. The paper was received in August 1968 (p. 225).

Acceptance. Reviewed: the site's curator, T. F. Bloom, labels the problem DISPROVED and credits Reid and Parker in the problem's commentary with the negative answer for every $n\ge14$ (page last edited 12 April 2026); the curator neither submitted nor co-wrote the result and is independent of the authors, and the community database records the problem disproved (last updated 21 April 2026). The site's "for every $n\ge14$" overstates the result: the formula $\lfloor\log_2n\rfloor+1$ holds again for $16\le n\le27$ (the paper's own values, p. 236) and for $n=32,33$, and fails for infinitely many $n$, as the problem page records. Refereed: J. Combinatorial Theory 9 (1970), no. 3, 225--238, communicated by Leo Moser. The theorem is attested by two later refereed sources: the survey paragraph of Ihringer, Rajendraprasad and Weinert (Discrete Math. 2021, p. 2) and Table 1 of McCarthy and Monico (Electron. J. Combin. 2025, p. 7) both cite $R(5)=14$ to the paper. Nagy's introduction (in the author-hosted copy; no journal record found in Crossref) names the paper as the disproof of the conjecture, and Neumann-Lara's shorter proof of Corollary 1 (Graphs Combin. 10 (1994), 363--366) has its own claim page; these attestations are beside the evidence listed above.

Read depth. Claims checked: Theorem 4 and Corollaries 1--2 on p. 235, and the $13$-vertex witness on pp. 235--236, whose automorphisms reduce the check to one cyclic triple, $OS(0,1)=\{2,3,6\}$, for the arcs with difference in $\{1,3,9\}$; the arcs with difference in $\{2,5,6\}$ form a second orbit, mapped to $(0,2)$, and $OS(0,2)=\{3,5\}$ has only two elements, so no $TT_3$ lies above them either (the paper states only the first triple). The proof of Theorem 4 was followed as a reduction to the paper's Theorems 2 and 3; the case analysis proving Theorem 3 (pp. 227--235) was read for structure only and not checked, and nothing is independently reviewed in this corpus.