B Bunkbed Conjecture Debunked?

fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
2024 Award
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
27,766
TL;DR Summary
A new paper claims (not peer-reviewed, yet) that the bunkbed conjecture has been debunked by an example of a graph with ##7222## vertices.
I have just read about a mathematical conjecture that has presumably been debunked, the bunkbed conjecture. The Wikipedia link hasn't been updated since I wrote this post. The preprint reads
We give an explicit counterexample to the bunkbed conjecture introduced by Kasteleyn in ##1985.## The counterexample is given by a planar graph on ##7222## vertices and is built on the recent work of Hollom ##(2024).##
There is a YouTube video (##\approx 15## min.) that explains the situation quite well.

Besides curiosity, there are some things I learned/have been reminded of again that might be worth a discussion.
  • There is a subject such as probabilistic combinatorics.
  • I have never heard of the bunkbed conjecture before.
  • ##10^{-47}## is enough to disprove an inequality.
  • Neural networks become more and more important in modern mathematics.
  • Neural networks do have their limits when their error margins are greater than the results.

The author of the video says that there have been numerous attempts to prove the conjecture, and now it seems that it cannot be proven. I hope that doesn't happen to the Riemann Hypothesis or the NP=P question.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes OmCheeto, Hornbein and jedishrfu
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top