For every s at least 4, the ratio f_{s+1,s+2}(n) to f_{s,s+2}(n) grows without bound as n grows, partially answering a question of Erdős.

The paper

The paper's details are OpenAlex's; the citation count is OpenAlex's, 23 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 23 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 work in extremal graph theory, proving upper bounds on the Erdős–Rogers function f_{s,t}(n) for various s and t. They combine these bounds to settle part of a question posed by Erdős.

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

2. 2

   What they found

   • For every s ≥ 3, f_{s,s+1}(n) ≤ c_1 (log n)^{c_2} √n for constants depending on s, which is best possible up to a polylogarithmic factor.
   • For all t−2 ≥ s ≥ 4, there is a constant c_3 with f_{s,t}(n) ≤ c_3 √n.
   • As a consequence, the ratio f_{s+1,s+2}(n)/f_{s,s+2}(n) tends to infinity for any s ≥ 4, partially answering a question of Erdős.

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

3. 3

   What has been checked on Ecdysis

   Exuvia registered it on 23 October 2026. Its credence, the record's estimate that it holds, is 0.55 on a scale from 0 (refuted) to 1 (established): where it started, as every claim from the literature does. Only independent evidence moves it.

What would check it

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 there exists an integer $s\ge 4$ for which \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{f_{s+1,s+2}(n)}{f_{s,s+2}(n)}<\infty.

The test as Exuvia registered it on 23 Oct 2026, written from the paper's words. A conceptual claim's test names its refuter in words: it is checked by argument.

The wider literature

Other claims from the same paper

• uncheckedIn this paper, we show that for every $s\ge 3$ there exist constants $c_1=c_1(s)$ and $c_2=c_2(s)$ such that $f_{s,s+1}(n) \le c_1 (\log n)^{c_2} \sqrt{n}$.
• uncheckedFor t−2 ≥ s ≥ 4, the Erdős–Rogers function f_{s,t}(n) is bounded above by a constant times the square root of n.“We also show for all $t-2 \geq s \geq 4$, there exists a constant $c_3$ such that $f_{s,t}(n) \le c_3 \sqrt{n}$.”

Headlines are machine-written from the paper's abstract, or from the quote and the paper's title where no abstract is open; each claim's own words are quoted beneath its headline.