This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
I'd seriously like to see a source for V(2,6)=1132. I'm flagging it, and if a source does not come up, I'm removing it, because that number is seriously beyond calculation as far as I know, especially if it's that high, unless someone has come up with a new way of doing things (in which case, I'd still like to see a reference before I let it stand).
Cheeser103:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Since apaprently nobody else wanted to do it, I went and looked and found one. Please though, in the future, do your own research (before posting).
Cheeser117:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)reply
New Lower bounds
This entry by Bill Gasarch at the
computational complexity blog points to the following recent work on van der Waerden numbers:
Lower Bounds for van der Waerden Numbers, By: Tamara Giorgadze, 6/15/08
[1]
I refrained from putting these into the table, since I am not an expert in the field and thus cannot judge about the correctness of the results.
Thus I only point to the announcement at this page and let anyone interested judge for himself.
Hermel (
talk)
12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)reply
In similar news, there is a
webpage by Marijn Heule at Delft University, who also works on improving these lower bounds. The site states that it is under construction, and announces a bunch of new results.
Hermel (
talk)
12:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
My Formula for the Diagonal of Van der Waerden Numbers
The sequence is 2, 9, 293, 29799 coming from the formula W(k) = (2*k^2 -1)^(k -1) +2^(k -1) where k= 1, 2, 3, 4, ... It would require lots of computer time to verify the fourth value in the sequence, but I'm confident. Searching for boundary would be an over-rated and unsatisfactory experience. Also, the table should be changed to reflect the first item: 2 in the sequence with only one color. By: William Bouris
2601:249:500:73FD:7079:FA87:7A1F:5A00 (
talk)
16:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is still not, and never will be, an appropriate venue for publishing original research. (Particularly nonsense like this.) --
JBL (
talk)
21:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Why are you assuming that my formulary idea is far-fetched?? In a peer-reviewed paper by Jerome Paul and Michal Kouril, they claim that for the sequence... 2, 9, 293, etc. that the "glue variables" inside the sequence are 1, 2, 4, respectively. The second half of my formula takes their work into account. I'll never understand why a degreed person feels that they are the only authority on such matters as math or physics. Many discoveries throughout world have been made by amateurs or even by mistake.
2601:249:500:73FD:2934:7100:2C9C:EF19 (
talk)
16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Graham conjecture
[2] Ron Graham apparently conjectured a while back that W(k,t) for fixed K grows as O(t2). Ben Green recently disproved this conjecture and shows that for any n, for sufficiently large k, W(k,t) grows faster than O(tn). This was a surprising result and seems worth writing up in the article.
2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (
talk)
00:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)reply
You cited two versions of a paper, both of which I have read; apparently the problem is that you screwed up and the content was included in a third, different version; and rather than be apologetic about your error you're being an asshole? Jfc. Maybe you could
learn how to add a reference instead? --
JBL (
talk)
22:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply