Borsuk asked in 1933 if every bounded set *K* of diameter 1 in can be covered by *d+1* sets of smaller diameter. A positive answer was referred to as the “Borsuk Conjecture,” and it was disproved by Jeff Kahn and me in 1993. Many interesting open problems remain. The first two posts in the series “Around Borsuk’s Conjecture” are here and here. See also these posts (I,II,III, IV), and the post “Surprises in mathematics and theory” on Lipton and Reagan’s blog GLL.

Can we * save* the conjecture? We can certainly try, and in this post I would like to examine the possibility that Borsuk’s conjecture is correct except from some “coincidental” sets. The question is how to properly define “coincidental.”

Let *K* be a set of points in and let *A* be a set of pairs of points in *K*. We say that the pair *(K, A)* is** general **if for every continuous deformation of the distances on

*A*there is a deformation

*K’*of

*K*which realizes the deformed distances.

(This condition is related to the “strong Arnold property” (aka “transversality”) in the theory of Colin de Verdière invariants of graphs; see also this paper by van der Holst, Lovasz and Schrijver.)

**Conjecture 1:** If *D* is the set of diameters in *K* and *(K,D)* is general then *K* can be partitioned into *d+1* sets of smaller diameter.

We propose also (somewhat stronger) that this conjecture holds even when “continuous deformation” is replaced with “infinitesimal deformation”.

The finite case is of special interest:

A graph embedded in is **stress-free** if we cannot assign non-trivial weights to the edges so that the weighted sum of the edges containing any vertex *v* (regarded as vectors from *v*) is zero for every vertex* v*. (Here we embed the vertices and regard the edges as straight line segments. (Edges may intersect.) Such a graph is called a “geometric graph”.) When we restrict Conjecture 1 to finite configurations of points we get.

**Conjecture 2:** If *G* is a stress free geometric graph of diameters in then *G* is *(d+1)-*colorable.

A geometric graph of diameters is a geometric graph with all edges having the same length and all non edged having smaller lengths. The attempt for “saving” the Borsuk Conjecture presented here and Conjectures 1 and 2 first appeared in a 2002 collection of open problems dedicated to Daniel J. Kleitman, edited by Douglas West.

When we consider finite configurations of points we can make a similar conjecture for the minimal distances:

**Conjecture 3:** If the geometric graph of pairs of vertices realizing the minimal distances of a point-configuration in is stress-free, then it is *(d+1)-*colorable.

We can speculate that even the following stronger conjectures are true:

**Conjecture 4:** If *G* is a stress-free geometric graph in so that all edges in *G* are longer than all non-edges of *G*, then *G* is *(d+1)-*colorable.

**Conjecture 5:** If* G* is a stress-free geometric graph in so that all edges in *G* are shorter than all non-edges of *G*, then *G* is *(d+1)-*colorable.

We can even try to extend the condition further so edges in the geometric graph will be larger (or smaller) than non-edges only just “locally” for neighbors of each given vertex.

### Comments:

1) It is not true that every stress-free geometric graph in is* (d+1)-*colorable, and not even that every stress-free unit-distance graph is *(d+1)-*colorable. Here is the (well-known) example referred to as the Moser Spindle. Finding conditions under which stress-free graphs in are (d+1)-colorable is an interesting challenge.

2) Since a stress-free graph with *n* vertices has at most edges it must have a vertex of degree *2d-1* or less and hence it is *2d* colorable. I expect this to be best possible but I am not sure about it. This shows that our “saved” version of Borsuk’s conjecture is of very different nature from the original one. For graphs of diameters in the chromatic number can, by the work of Jeff and me be exponential in .

3) It would be interesting to show that conjecture 1 holds in the non-discrete case when *d+1* is replaced by *2d*.

4) Coloring vertices of geometric graphs where the edged correspond to the minimal distance is related also the the well known Erdos-Faber-Lovasz conjecture..

See also this 1994 article by Jeff Kahn on Hypergraphs matching, covering and coloring problems.

5) The most famous conjecture regarding coloring of graphs is, of course, the four-color conjecture asserting that every planar graph is 4-colorable that was proved by Appel and Haken in 1976. Thinking about the four-color conjecture is always both fascinating and frustrating. An embedding for maximal planar graphs as vertices of a convex 3-dimensional polytope is stress-free (and so is, therefore, also a generic embedding), but we know that this property alone does not suffice for 4-colorability. Finding further conditions for stress-free graphs in that guarantee *(d+1)-*colorability can be relevant to the 4CT.

An old conjecture of mine asserts that

**Conjecture 6**: Let *G* be a graph obtained from the graph of a *d*-polytope *P* by triangulating each (non-triangular) face with non-intersecting diagonals. If *G* is stress-free (in which case the polytope *P* is called “elementary”) then *G* is *(d+1)-*colorable.

Closer to the conjectures of this post we can ask:

**Conjecture 7:** If* G* is a stress-free geometric graph in so that for every edge *e* of *G* is tangent to the unit ball and every non edge of G intersect the interior of the unit ball, then *G* is *(d+1)-*colorable.

### A question that I forgot to include in part I.

What is the minimum diameter such that the unit ball in can be covered by *n+1* sets of smaller diameter? It is known that for some constants *C* and *C’*.

Pingback: Coloring Problems for Arrangements of Circles (and Pseudocircles) | Combinatorics and more