3 ms·
Some counterpoints: 2 mathematicians greatly increases chances of senility. Blogs/twitter also correlate much stronger with author age than truth of statement.
by adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
Some counterpoints: 2 mathematicians greatly increases chances of senility. Blogs/twitter also correlate much stronger with author age than truth of statement.
>The argument looks like it's based on large n asymptotics, so even assuming everything works correctly the strongest statement they can hope to show is that the theorem is true for all n > n_0, where n_0 is some large constant. But there is no mention of this fact. The theorem is claimed for all n.
This is completely wrong. A proof for all n>n_0 is a proof for all n, since any counter-examples have to exist as subgraphs of arbitrarily large graphs.
- spekcular 4y agoI don't think asymptotic estimates of that form suffice to treat this problem. (Where else in combinatorics has an argument of this form succeeded? What intuitive reason is there to expect it to succeed here?) Specifically I think section 4 is basically nonsense. (I see Sniffnoy has already pointed this out below.) (Re: your comment, Theorem 7 is going to fail below the smallest counterexample, right? This is bad, imprecise writing - a red flag.)