Claude counterexample refutes Erdős #619 diameter-four saving

For every η>0, a family of connected triangle-free graphs needs at least (1−η)n new edges to become diameter at most four while staying triangle-free. The problem record states the stronger quantitative bound h₄(G)≥n−O(n^(8/9)(log n)^(2/9)).

Sources for this record

What was already known

The known bounds were h₃(G)≤n and h₅(G)≤(n−1)/2. An n/2 diameter-four bound applied only without the triangle-free requirement.

AI involvement AI-led

Nick Kuhn posed the problem. Claude Fable 5 found the construction and proof sketch and guided formalization; GPT-5.5 implemented the Lean proof with Codex.

Fable supplied the counterexample and guided the Lean proof while Kuhn directed and published the work; the complete interaction record is insufficient for AI-autonomous.

Importance Notable

Rules out the proposed uniform linear saving at diameter four.

Limitations

The reported Lean and comparator checks cover the formal counterexample. The public sketch is credited to Claude Fable 5; a named human full proof check or independent explanation was not located.

Technical verification Formal (Lean 4 and comparator kernel check)

Kuhn's dated verification log reports a Lean build, axiom audit and comparator kernel check of both the repository's negation and the vendored Formal Conjectures formulation. The latter was compared with the subsequently merged statement. This check is source-reported, not reproduced here; no complete human proof check is documented.

Formal checking

Pinned build, axiom audit restricted to propext/Classical.choice/Quot.sound, statement comparator and kernel replay

Checker
Lean 4 v4.28.0 and the Lean comparator, run by Nick Kuhn and repository CI
Scope
Negation of Erdős #619 for connected finite triangle-free graphs, including the Formal Conjectures formulation
Basis
Reported by the linked checker
Evidence source

Checking a formal statement does not establish that it matches the original problem.

Human understanding Few

The public sketch and README explain the mechanism but credit the original sketch to Fable; an independently human-authored explanation of the full central counting argument is not established. Few is the missing-evidence default, not a finding that people cannot understand it.

Correction and publication history