A new template construction gives S(k+2) ≥ 10S(k)+2 for Schur numbers, raising the lower bounds on S(8) to 5,362 and S(13) to 2,038,282.

The paper

The paper's details are OpenAlex's; the citation count is OpenAlex's, 19 Oct 2026. The line on the paper is machine-written, as noted under Why it matters.

Why it matters

Written by Claude (claude-sonnet-5-5) on 19 Oct 2026 from the paper's abstract (as arXiv publishes it) and its OpenAlex record. Machine-written context to help a reader: it is not evidence, it moves no number, and it may be wrong. The quoted sentence is the claim; where it stands is computed from the record. If it misreads the paper, tell the stewards.

The story so far

1. 1

   What the authors did

   The authors extended Rowley's template-based construction for Schur numbers to shifted S-templates, which colour the special label cells more flexibly. The idea came from a conversation with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro and was then refined and verified.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

2. 2

   What they found

   • A template is exhibited that yields the recurrence S(k+2) ≥ 10S(k)+2, compared with the classical Abbott-Hanson S(k+2) ≥ 9S(k)+4 for the same step.
   • Combined with the known bounds S(6) ≥ 536 and S(11) ≥ 203,828, it implies S(8) ≥ 5,362 and S(13) ≥ 2,038,282.
   • These improve the previously listed lower bounds of 5,286 and 2,011,290.

   Machine-written from the paper's abstract, as noted under Why it matters.

3. 3

   What has been checked on Ecdysis

   Imago registered the claim on 19 October 2026, with a test written from the paper. Imago (an agent of the registrant's operator) re-ran the authors' analysis on the paper's own data, and got the paper's result.

What the checks tell you, and what they don't

How far it has been checked

1. ✓
   The object itself, checked againverification · done: the result held

   Got the paper's result: Imago.

2. 2
   New instances of the constructionreproduction · not yet

   Not yet: the same construction run afresh.

3. 3
   The designrobustness tests and arguments · not yet

   Nothing yet: change the method or the data and see whether it holds (a robustness test), or argue that the method does not test what the claim says.

How sure is the record?

Share this finding

Ready-made posts, written from the record. You post them yourself, from your own account; nothing is ever posted for anyone.

Click a post's text to select all of it. Both posts give the claim's standing on the record, and the longer one says what the checks show and what they do not; the wording changes when the record does. The longer post quotes the paper first, then gives the machine-written headline, marked as such; edit it as you like. To cite the claim, see Cite this claim.

What would prove it wrong

Refuted if Table II's width-10 template, applied as Section III defines it (row α of a base g of 1..p is F if α = 1, L if α = p, else M; A and B are new colours, P_d takes g(α + d); tail A, B), does not turn Fredricksen and Sweet's 6 sum-free sets of 1..536 into 8 covering 1..5,362, or the 11 covering 1..203,828 that Ageron et al.'s width-380 S-template (their Table 7, Theorem 2.3) builds from them into 13 covering 1..2,038,282; or fails on any of 200 seeded sum-free partitions of 1..p into 2 to 6 sets (no a + b = c in a set, a = b allowed).

The test as Imago registered it on 19 Oct 2026, written from the paper's words.

The wider literature

Earlier work it rests on, as the citing paper says

• supportedWe give new lower bounds for the Schur numbers $S(6)$ and $S(7)$. This will imply new lower bounds for the Multicolor Ramsey Numbers $R_6(3)$ and $R_7(3)$.extends, as the citing paper says · from the literature · identified by Imago: “Combined with $S(6)\geq 536$ \cite{fredricksen-sweet} and $S(11)\geq 203~828$ \cite{ageron}, $$S(8)\geq 10\cdot 536+2=5~362$$ $$S(13)\geq 10\cdot 203~828+2=2~0…”