3 ms·
The paper doesn't answer the problem in its title (n²+1) but demonstrates two different "advancements" towards it (n²+2) > We have posed a fine (in our opinion
by rawling 3y ago
The paper doesn't answer the problem in its title (n²+1) but demonstrates two different "advancements" towards it (n²+2)
> We have posed a fine (in our opinion) open problem and
reported two distinct “behold-style” proofs of our advance on this
problem.
There's also a linked PDF which, if I'm reading it correctly, trivially proves n²+1 is impossible.