Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Proginoskes on 5 Sep 2006 17:57 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > > > Isn't Arxiv peer-reviewed? > > No. There are a couple of Four Color Theorem papers which have obvious errors in them. (I found them in < 5 minutes.) One is by Friess, and the other is by an Asian mathematician. I haven't yet decided whether Cahit's result works, mainly because of the lack of a proof that is detailed enough. You might want to check Cahit's "proof" of Steinberg's Conjecture (any planar graph without 4- or 5-cycles is 3-colorable). There's a sentence in the proof which says (paraphrased), "We only need to consider the one following graph." He offers this statement without any kind of justification, and the rest of the paper is unnecessary fluff! --- Christopher Heckman
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 18:26 By the way I'm returning this sequence to the appropriate thread whence it came and you're welcome to read my reply on that venue. On 5 Sep 2006 11:47:06 -0700, "David R Tribble" <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: [. . .] ~v~~
From: icahit on 5 Sep 2006 18:36 1. Detailed proof on the spiral chain coloring will be given soon (nothing will be changed in the structure of the proof) which is an addition of the use (S,NS)-Kempe chain switching in case of undecided case on the current spiral segment, where S is a "safe color" and NS is a non-safe color. 2. On my proof of the Steinberg's conjecture, I have just added the following justification: In the final step of the spiral chain coloring if the planar graph without cycles of length 4 and 5 is four colorable then the color four has to be assigned to the last node of the spiral chain. But then edges incident to the last node has to be in a cycle of length 4 or 5 which is an contradiction. Well after my presentation of my 4CT proof at the ICM someone asked me then I will submit to a journal? I made the following joke, if someone has the non-computer proof of the four color theorem then historically (due to Kempe's proof) he has the right to wait at least 10 years. But I am almost sure that no one will be able to submit an counter-example or a serious critics. Cahit Proginoskes wrote: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > > > > > Isn't Arxiv peer-reviewed? > > > > No. > > There are a couple of Four Color Theorem papers which have obvious > errors in them. (I found them in < 5 minutes.) One is by Friess, and > the other is by an Asian mathematician. I haven't yet decided whether > Cahit's result works, mainly because of the lack of a proof that is > detailed enough. > > You might want to check Cahit's "proof" of Steinberg's Conjecture (any > planar graph without 4- or 5-cycles is 3-colorable). There's a sentence > in the proof which says (paraphrased), "We only need to consider the > one following graph." He offers this statement without any kind of > justification, and the rest of the paper is unnecessary fluff! > > --- Christopher Heckman
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 18:45 On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:59:00 EDT, fernando revilla <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:06:59 EDT, fernando revilla >> <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:13:01 EDT, fernando revilla >> >> <frej0002(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: >> >> >> >> >DontBother wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Don't patronize me, sport. If you can't answer >> the >> >> >> question I actually >> >> >> asked instead of some question you wish I'd >> then >> >> >> don't reply. >> >> >> >> >> >> ~v~~ >> >> > >> >> >TEST. >> >> > >> >> >A master of Zen pointing to a table asked: What >> is >> >> this ? >> >> > >> >> >A table, answered one student. >> >> > >> >> >No it is not, said the master, table is a sound; >> is >> >> sound >> >> >a sound ? >> >> >> >> And what did the table answer? >> >> >> >> >Answers >> >> > >> >> >a) Yes, sound is always a sound. b) No, the >> master >> >> is >> >> >trying to lie us. c) Others. >> >> >> >> A mutiple guess zen quiz? How positively >> >> neomathematical. >> >> >> >> >Hint: Language it is not exactly the same than >> >> feelings. >> >> >> >> Whatever. It just seems to be the same as feelings >> >> when employed by >> >> neomathematikers. >> >> >> >> ~v~~ >> > >> >That is a serious story. In an implicit way there >> appear >> >two different definitions of "table" and also of >> "sound" >> >all of them correct. >> >> Jesus you really consider this story bears any >> epistemological >> significance whatsoever? This is nothing but a >> completely trivial >> instance of zen truth. First we had Virgil's truth as >> a function of >> grammar and now we have truth as a function of >> grasshoppers. >> >> >( I must however recognize that we need the hearing >> >sense for understanding it, perhaps nothing to do >> with >> >formalism. ) >> >> Sure. Why don't you consider submitting the story to >> The Journal of >> Comparative Philology where it will probably get >> exactly the >> consideration it deserves. >> >> ~v~~ > >At least we are enjoying a lot, aren't we ? I'd rather enjoy a little less and get you to widen your line widths a little more. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 5 Sep 2006 18:46
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:51:32 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <14krf21380dfv1tck0dqgvskm37rm8uthq(a)4ax.com>, > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> Jesus you really consider this story bears any epistemological >> significance whatsoever? This is nothing but a completely trivial >> instance of zen truth. First we had Virgil's truth as a function of >> grammar and now we have truth as a function of grasshoppers. > >Better than truth because Zick says so" Hardly better than truth, Virgil, just better than fantasy land. ~v~~ |