slug: chervov-2026-cayleypy4-conjecture-sixteen-refutation bibkey: chervov2026cayleypy4 doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.22195 url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22195v1 triage: theorem motivation_gids:
- D5/S3/Combinatorics/ShrunkenGrassmannianConjectureSixteenRefutation.result
CayleyPy-4 Conjecture 16 fails at k = 4, L = 2, N = 5
Problem
CayleyPy-4 (arXiv:2603.22195v1) studies the Schreier coset graph
S_N / (S_L × S_{N−L}) on binary words with L zeros and N − L ones,
generated by the consecutive k-cycles (i, …, i + k − 1) for N > k.
Conjecture 16 treats the inverse-closed case, in which a move rotates k
consecutive letters one place in either direction:
For from (?): For from : if , if . For for large enough:
Issue #10252 fixes the readings as in #10230: words are List Bool, and the
diameter is read both as the largest distance from the central state
[0]^L + [1]^{N−L} and as the largest distance between two vertices; the
k = 5 range reads “for some constant C, all L ≥ C and N − L ≥ C”.
Motivation
The formal claim is the conjunction of the three clauses under either
reading of the diameter, and
D5/S3/Combinatorics/ShrunkenGrassmannianConjectureSixteenRefutation.result
refutes it under both. The k = 3 clause alone holds:
D5/S3/Combinatorics/ShrunkenGrassmannianThreeCycleDiameter.result proves it.
Gap
Issue #10252 preregisters the refutation and its literature check. arXiv
lists only version 1 (2026-03-23); the two citing papers reported by Semantic
Scholar, arXiv:2607.13219 and arXiv:2607.12026, do not concern these coset
graphs. These readings are not-found-in-searched-scope.
Route
At k = 4, L = 2, N = 5 the ten vertices lie at distances
0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3 from 00111, and 11010 is the only vertex at
distance 3. The proof lists every word reached within m moves: starting
from [x], each step appends all rotations of all listed words, and every
word reached within m moves is in the list, by induction on m. The kernel
evaluates the list for m = 2 from 00111 and finds that 11010 is absent.
If the central eccentricity or the diameter were 2, the least element of its
defining set would be 2, and 11010, which has two zeros, would be within
two moves of 00111, which is also a vertex. Since 3 does not divide 2,
the k = 4 formula gives ⌊8/3⌋ = 2.
Falsifier
The refutation would fail if 11010 were within two moves of 00111 under
rotations of four consecutive letters in either direction, or if the k = 4
formula gave 3 at L = 2, N = 5.
Evidence
Exact breadth-first search for 5 ≤ N ≤ 11 and 2 ≤ L ≤ N finds the
k = 4 clause wrong at 13 pairs. At (L, N) = (2, 5), (3, 5), (3, 6), (5, 6), (6, 7), (2, 8), (6, 8), (8, 9), (9, 10), (2, 11), (9, 11) both the central
eccentricity and the diameter exceed the formula by one. At (3, 9) and
(6, 9) the central eccentricity equals the formula value 6 and the diameter
is 7. Every mismatch has min(L, N − L) ≤ 3, and every pair with L ≥ 4 and
N − L ≥ 4 in this range agrees under both readings.
The canonical source is
D5/S3/Combinatorics/ShrunkenGrassmannianConjectureSixteenRefutation.lean.
Its public declarations are formulaFour, formulaFive, conjSixteen,
claim, and result. The frozen module state has statement identity
sha256:d4efb9b91f4f74202d8789187fef8f6e3e111969aaeb081382f701d58fec3370.
The result declaration has statement identity
sha256:bacb17b09e6e0da67076f7e6e8be374d632a61ad01db65990a8c2c4df6a39563.
The Freeze event is
sha256:34620c527700187f5670eb299dab35022829f54ca91ed4742d8686daa8742a8d.
Its project-level frozen prerequisite is
D5/S3/Combinatorics/ShrunkenGrassmannianThreeCycleDiameter. The proof uses
only the standard axioms propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound; no
sorry, native_decide, or new axiom.
Triage
Tier 1 external named conjecture, preregistered in issue #10252 before the
probe. theorem (a refutation); resolution refuted. Utility
kind=certified-instance; basis=refutes, with typed claim and result.
The public theorem has proof_shape: content: the containment of the
m-move reachable set in the listed ball is a new proposition on the live
proof path. Its admission basis is open-problem-resolution.
ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED
The failures lie at the boundary min(L, N − L) ≤ 3; whether the formula
holds for all L ≥ 4, N − L ≥ 4 is not settled here. The k = 5 clause
is not settled here. The bounded literature check does not establish
exhaustive worldwide novelty, priority, or the absence of an independent
proof.