Eⁿ non-arrow (ℓ₃, ℓ_m) for large m

Status partial high confidence

Conlon and Fox (arXiv:1705.02166) asked whether for every $m$ there exists $n$ with $E^n \not\to (\ell_3, \ell_m)$, while suspecting this fails for large $m$. Conlon and Wu (arXiv:2208.13513) gave a dimension-independent coloring showing $E^n \not\to (\ell_3, \ell_{1177})$ for all $n$, partially answering the question in the positive direction for a specific $m$. A subsequent paper (arXiv:2404.19233) improved the bound dramatically to $m = 20$. The question for all $m$, in particular whether the non-arrow relation can hold for arbitrarily large $m$, remains open.

Cited literature (2)

• partial More on lines in Euclidean Ramsey theory (2022)
  David Conlon, Yu-Han Wu · arXiv preprint · arXiv:2208.13513

  Constructs a single red/blue-coloring of $E^n$ (for every $n$) with no red $\ell_3$ and no blue $\ell_{1177}$, establishing $E^n \not\to (\ell_3, \ell_{1177})$ for all $n$ and partially answering the open problem in the positive direction for this specific $m$.

• partial Avoiding short progressions in Euclidean Ramsey theory (2024)
  not confirmed from fetch · arXiv preprint · arXiv:2404.19233

  Dramatically improves the Conlon–Wu bound, proving $E^n \not\to (\ell_3, \ell_{20})$ for every $n$; also establishes $E^n \not\to (\ell_4, \ell_{14})$ and $E^n \not\to (\ell_5, \ell_8)$.

Reviewer notes. Two follow-up papers establish the non-arrow relation for small specific values of m (m=20 and m=1177), providing partial positive answers but not resolving the full question for all m. The original authors suspected the relation fails (arrow holds) for large m, but no proof of this has been found. The Conlon–Wu paper (2208.13513) attributes the problem to Conlon, Fox, and independently Arman and Tsaturian.

Auto-reviewed 2026-05-15 with claude-sonnet-4-6 (web search enabled).