Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- From: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Tobin)
- Date: 15 Jun 2007 10:16:05 GMT
In article <1181887726.605917.87340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Proginoskes <CCHeckman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think Bill meant to say "irrational" here --- if not, then HE is
irrational 8-) --- but the idea of "A map that requires K colors needs
to have K regions all adjacent to each other" is easily seen to be
false for K = 3 and 4, so it could easily be false for K = 5.
Yes. The purpose of pointing out the K=4 case is to encourage the
original "prover" to make explicit the reasoning (or lack of it) that
led to the faulty step.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
.
- References:
- Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- From: Andre
- Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- From: Gerry Myerson
- Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- From: bill
- Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- From: Proginoskes
- Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- Prev by Date: Re: must specify free variable for consistent operator on L^2(R)?
- Next by Date: Re: Welcome to sci.math, an unmoderated free-for-all.
- Previous by thread: Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- Next by thread: Re: Four color theorem: why this is not a proof and pointer to simple explanations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
