trureturingGitHub MATHEMATICAL ATLAS

RESEARCH / Focused target

Mathar's Conjecture 1 on two non-bonding dominoes

Literature status: not recheckedRepository record: proved

RELEASED FOUNDATIONS / PROPOSED CONNECTION

Research connections

0 released anchors
All source anchors (1)

Problem

The question

R. J. Mathar (arXiv:2404.18806, 2024) counts placements of dominoes on an r × c board that are non-bonding: every square of one is at L1 distance at least 2 from every square of another. They are hard dimers with nearest-neighbour exclusion. His Conjecture 1 (equation (21)) reads:

D(r,c,2) = 2c²r² − 2(cr² + c²r) + ½(r² + c²) − 22cr + (59/2)(c + r) − 30; r, c ≥ 3.

Issue #11068 fixes the reading. A domino is a set of two board squares at L1 distance 1, and D(r, c, 2) counts the sets of two pairwise non-bonding dominoes. The identity holds in ℚ for all r, c ≥ 3.

Motivation

Our foothold

The paper left the formula as a conjecture from its transfer-matrix tables. D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/HardCore/NonBondingDominoPairs.result proves it for all r, c ≥ 3.

Gap

Missing bridges

Issue #11068 preregisters the proof route and the literature check. arXiv has only version 1 and no later paper, Semantic Scholar lists no citation, and the OEIS has no entry for the rows. not-found-in-searched-scope.

Route

Proposed approach

  1. Every domino is horizontal or vertical and is determined by its anchor square.
  2. Two distinct dominoes bond exactly when the offset of their anchors lies in a finite list:
    • 11 offsets for equal orientations, the equal domino included;
    • 12 offsets for mixed orientations.
  3. The ordered anchor pairs with a given offset form a product of two interval overlaps. For r, c ≥ 3 each overlap is linear in r or in c.
  4. Twice D(r, c, 2) is the number of ordered non-bonding pairs: N² minus the 46 offset classes, where N = r(c − 1) + (r − 1)c. Summing gives the polynomial.

Falsifier

What would falsify this route

The proof would fail if a bonded offset were missing from the lists of step 2, or if an overlap of step 3 were not linear for some r, c ≥ 3.

Evidence

Evidence to collect

Brute force from the literal definition (#11068):

  • the formula matches for all 3 ≤ r, c ≤ 10;
  • it fails for every tested board with r ≤ 2 or c ≤ 2;
  • replacing the constant term −30 by −29 matches none of the 36 boards with 3 ≤ r, c ≤ 8.

The canonical source is D5/S3/StatisticalMechanics/HardCore/NonBondingDominoPairs.lean. Its public declarations are IsDomino, NonBonding, D2, claim, and result.

  • Frozen module statement identity: sha256:f57332fcc4ec0c999803dfb6462e0d206bf0394329542d85010d8b9462d2eadd.
  • Result declaration statement identity: sha256:9585653f22b4f09cf7b60c60161fab403e11db0867867aec7dc9b02e3747fdae.
  • Freeze event: sha256:39e23454011ce8257a8f38c9c198c58c5074bdba412f9192c5c6f51b726ac9cb.

It has no project-level frozen prerequisite. The proof uses only the standard axioms propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound; no sorry, native_decide, or new axiom.

Triage

Scope assessment

Tier 1 external named conjecture (2024 paper), preregistered in issue #11068 before any Lean. theorem; resolution proved. The public theorem has proof_shape: content. The anchor bijection, the bond-offset classification and the overlap counts are new propositions on its live path. Admission basis open-problem-resolution; utility none.

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

Unverified assumptions

The bounded literature check does not establish exhaustive worldwide novelty, priority, or the absence of an independent proof.

Dossier & anchor history

Loading release observations...