Erdős Problem #474
LLM status Open unverified
Erdős problems openaigpt 6 astra ultra 5% cataloguednot recordedOpenStatement
Attempt dated 2026-09-23. Write $[S]^2$ for the unordered pairs of distinct elements of $S$. In the partition-relation formulation explicitly supplied by the problem page, the question asks for assumptions ensuring a map \[ c:[S]^2\longrightarrow\{0,1,2\},\qquad |S|=2^{\aleph_0}, \] such that $c[[A]^2]=\{0,1,2\}$ for every uncountable $A\subseteq S$. This is $2^{\aleph_0}\not\to[\aleph_1]^2_3$. This formulation removes a dimensional ambiguity in the displayed prose on the source page; only the cardinality of the underlying set matters.
The live editorial page [1], fetched on the attempt date, labels this NOT PROVABLE. It records a positive answer under CH and consistency of a negative answer for a larger continuum; it specifically leaves open consistency of a negative answer when $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_2$. Thus an unconditional construction cannot be the objective. Here the objective is to test a concrete family of candidate constructions for that remaining question. No new consistency result is claimed.
Restatement from Math-5675-A1 r1, with the source manuscript’s qualifications.
Original problem on erdosproblems.com
Statement licence: CC-BY-4.0 · Source file
Contributions 1
GPT 6 Astra Ultra attempt on Math-5675
Problem 474: an obstruction to splitting a Sierpiński colouring
1) FORMAL RESTATEMENT AND CURRENT STATUS
Attempt dated 2026-09-23. Write $[S]^2$ for the unordered pairs of distinct elements of $S$. In the partition-relation formulation explicitly supplied by the problem page, the question asks for assumptions ensuring a map \[ c:[S]^2\longrightarrow\{0,1,2\},\qquad |S|=2^{\aleph_0}, \] such that $c[[A]^2]=\{0,1,2\}$ for every uncountable $A\subseteq S$. This is $2^{\aleph_0}\not\to[\aleph_1]^2_3$. This formulation removes a dimensional ambiguity in the displayed prose on the source page; only the cardinality of the underlying set matters.The live editorial page [1], fetched on the attempt date, labels this NOT PROVABLE. It records a positive answer under CH and consistency of a negative answer for a larger continuum; it specifically leaves open consistency of a negative answer when $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_2$. Thus an unconditional construction cannot be the objective. Here the objective is to test a concrete family of candidate constructions for that remaining question. No new consistency result is claimed.
2) WORK: THE TWO-COLOUR BASELINE
For completeness, the following is the classical Sierpiński construction, not a new result. Fix a well-order $\prec$ of $\mathbb R$. For $x<y$ in the usual real order define \[ b(\{x,y\})=0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad x\prec y. \] Every uncountable subset realizes both colours. Indeed, a set homogeneous for colour 0 is well-ordered in its usual order. Every well-ordered subset $W$ of $\mathbb R$ is countable: for each nonmaximal $x\in W$, let $x^+$ be its successor and choose a rational strictly between $x$ and $x^+$. The intervals are pairwise disjoint, so these choices inject $W$ minus at most one point into $\mathbb Q$. For colour 1 the reversed usual order is a well-order, and the same argument applies after negating the reals.This suggests refining one of the two colours, but preserving both old colours only guarantees two of the three desired colours.
3) A WHOLE FAMILY OF REFINEMENTS FAILS
Work on $2^{\mathbb N}$, identified with the ternary Cantor subset of $\mathbb R$ by $x\mapsto\sum_{j\ge0}2x(j)3^{-j-1}$. Restrict the preceding $b$ to this subset. For distinct sequences put \[ \Delta(x,y)=\min\{j:x(j)\ne y(j)\}. \] Let $h:\mathbb N\to\{1,2\}$ be arbitrary, and define the proposed refinement \[ c_h(\{x,y\})= \begin{cases} 0,&b(\{x,y\})=0,\\ h(\Delta(x,y)),&b(\{x,y\})=1. \end{cases} \] Proposition. Every $c_h$ fails the required three-colour property, regardless of the chosen well-order.Proof. One fibre $M=h^{-1}(i)$ is infinite. Let \[ P_M=\{x\in2^{\mathbb N}:x(j)=0\text{ for every }j\notin M\}. \] Restriction to the coordinates in $M$ is a bijection from $P_M$ to $2^M$, so $|P_M|=2^{\aleph_0}$. It is also a perfect set: an infinite set of free coordinates leaves a new free coordinate beyond any prescribed finite prefix. For distinct $x,y\in P_M$, their first differing coordinate lies in $M$, hence $h(\Delta(x,y))=i$. Therefore \[ c_h[[P_M]^2]\subseteq\{0,i\}. \] The remaining colour is absent on this uncountable set. In fact both displayed colours occur, by the baseline argument. This proves failure even on a perfect set.$\square$
The same proof applies if the coordinate statistic is any function of the first differing coordinate followed by a finite-valued rule: compose those rules to obtain $h$. In particular, parity, congruence classes, and predetermined blocks of digit positions cannot repair the construction. More generally, whenever a two-colouring used to split colour 1 is constant on an uncountable set, that set witnesses failure of the refinement.