Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Problem 1167
claims/: The 2 claim pages of Problem 1167, one per claimant's result; the problem's standing derives from them.
Statement. Let be finite and be an infinite cardinal. Let be cardinals for all .
Is it true that
implies
Here means cardinal addition, so that if is infinite.
Statement (corrected). Let be finite and be an infinite cardinal. Let and let be cardinals for all .
Is it true that
implies
Here means cardinal addition, so that if is infinite.
Notes. The site's wording follows the booklet item [Va99, 7.79] and puts no
condition on or on the , and, read as the site words it,
the implication is false. For and , the premise
says only that , which
holds, while needs a subset of of size
. For , and , the premise
holds: either some -set has color , or all of is
homogeneous in color . The constant coloring of with color
refutes the conclusion. Both failures are boundary cases of a dropped range, and
the change adds the conditions and of the
Erdős–Hajnal list, which exclude them. Komjáth's Problem 2 ([Ko25b], p. 419)
states the question for finite with and a condition on
that the site's curator reads as , taking the printed
inequality for a misprint. The curator's reply in the
discussion thread points to
these conditions rather than accepting a disproof, and the site keeps the label
OPEN. The
formal-conjectures statement file
adds and and proves the first counterexample as
its test lemma erdos_1167.unrestricted_is_false. That lemma is in a statement
file, so it is not a formalization link and gets no claim page, and the corpus
has not built it. Rafik Zeraoulia gave the first counterexample in a note of 31
January 2026. It answers the site's wording, not the corrected Statement, so it
does not count toward the problem's standing; it is credited here and recorded
on
Zeraoulia's rejected claim page.
The problem's standing judges the corrected Statement.
Status. The site's label is OPEN. The corrected Statement, with the conditions and , is open; the counterexample to the site's wording at is credited in the Notes and recorded on a rejected claim page.
Source. erdosproblems.com/1167, accessed 2026-09-04. Cite as: T. F. Bloom, Erdős Problem #1167, https://www.erdosproblems.com/1167.
References.
- [ErHa71] Erdős, P. and Hajnal, A., Unsolved problems in set theory. Axiomatic Set Theory (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XIII, Part I) (1971), 17-48.
- [EHMR84] Erdős, P., Hajnal, A., Máté, A. and Rado, R., Combinatorial set theory: partition relations for cardinals. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 106, North-Holland (1984).
- [Va99] Some of Paul's favorite problems, booklet for the conference "Paul Erdős and his mathematics", Budapest, July 1999; item 7.79.
- [Ko25b] P. Komjáth, The Erdős-Hajnal Problem List. Bull. Symb. Log. (2025), 418-461; Problem 2, p. 419 (source card).
Formalization. Statement in formal-conjectures.
Current assessment
The site's Statement, as the site gave it on 2026-09-04 (page last edited 1 September 2026), puts no condition on or on the , and, read as the site words it, it is false: for and the premise holds and the conclusion fails. Rafik Zeraoulia gave this counterexample in a note of 31 January 2026, recorded as rejected on Zeraoulia's page, since it answers the site's wording, not the corrected Statement. The site labels the problem OPEN, and its curator's reply in the discussion thread points to the conditions of the Erdős–Hajnal list rather than accepting a disproof. The corrected Statement, which adds those conditions, is the statement this page's standing judges.
The corrected Statement, with the list's conditions , and , is open. Erdős, Hajnal, Máté and Rado prove five cases of it (see Known Results), and the case Erdős and Hajnal named as the most difficult in [ErHa71], with one singular and the others finite, is open even under GCH. This page records no current literature search beyond the site, its thread, the formal-conjectures file and Komjáth's survey.
Known Results
Erdős, Hajnal, Máté and Rado [EHMR84] prove the implication, under the list's conditions, in five cases: all finite; and infinite with regular; with infinite and regular; with and infinite; with infinite. Komjáth's Problem 2 commentary records the same cases from their Section 24. These are partial results on the corrected Statement, recorded on [[problems/set_theory/E1167/claims/1984_01_01_erdos_hajnal_mate_rado|the monograph's page]].