Talk:Van der Waerden number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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). Cheeser1 03:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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). Cheeser1 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

New Lower bounds[edit]

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)

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)

My Formula for the Diagonal of Van der Waerden Numbers[edit]

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)

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)
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)