Talk:Zarankiewicz problem

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sevinon in topic Missing s≥t

Problem with Upper Bound edit

What is t?

Probably the pair (s,t) on the right-hand side plays the role that the pair (r,s) has on the left-hand side, so the correct inequality might be
 
The reference to the inequality is given at the bottom of the article, and it should be also contained in the mentioned chapter of the Bollobas book. Both are reliable sources (and not online). Is anyone willing to undertake the work to go offline, into a library and look it up? Hermel (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have looked it up and fixed the problem.Hermel (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Missing s≥t edit

All the bounds are given under the assumption of s≥t which is not stated anywhere. I'm not sure where the best place to insert this would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevinon (talkcontribs) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply