3 ms·

Whenever I end up in this list I always wonder whether all these proofs have been refuted. I assume they must have been, considering the problem is still open.

by sasaf5 5y ago

Whenever I end up in this list I always wonder whether all these proofs have been refuted. I assume they must have been, considering the problem is still open. But it would be nice if the author had linked to the refutation of at least a few of them. Edit: I now noticed that a few of them have: 3.[Equal]:... Zhu Daming, Luan Junfeng and M. A. Shaohan (all affiliated with Shandong University, China) refute these claims in their paper "Hardness and methods to solve CLIQUE" (Journal of Computer Science and Technology 16, 2001, pp 388-391).

zaik 5y ago
> I always wonder whether all these proofs have been refuted Sadly, no. I have talked to the author of one of those papers and apparently there is not a lot of motivation to check new proof attempts from the relevant people anymore.
- fjfaase 5y ago
  It is probably because the proof is either relativizing, natural or algebrizing. It has been proven that those types of proofs are not going to work. The people who submit these kind of proofs often do not understand that they are never going to work. Why would you, as a serious mathematician that understands this to spend your energy to refute some proof for which you know that it already has been refuted. It is the same why designs of peperpetium mobilium devices are not being refuted.