I'm a math professor who has lost years to this question. I've met various authors involved in successful proofs. My 1976 grad school application from the University of Illinois came postmarked "Four Colors Suffice" (Appel, Haken). I've also been inundated with well-intended crank proofs of every tar pit like this. One can tell the difference without focusing one's eyes.
These authors have long, established careers, with 2,000 MathSciNet citations between them. Waterloo is a hotbed of combinatorics; I doubt that they posted this before passing the paper around a bit.
Graph theory as a branch of mathematics is like photography as an art form: Anyone can point a camera, and one sees a lot of incredibly weak graph theory if one digs deep enough into the regional conference circuit.
This work is deep, relying on an understanding of generating functions that many casual practitioners don't possess. If the proof has a flaw, the issue will be technical and difficult to uncover. I love how people take the obvious bet that this is likely wrong because so many proof attempts have failed. In a prediction market, I'd bet on this proof being right.
These authors have long, established careers, with 2,000 MathSciNet citations between them. Waterloo is a hotbed of combinatorics; I doubt that they posted this before passing the paper around a bit.
Graph theory as a branch of mathematics is like photography as an art form: Anyone can point a camera, and one sees a lot of incredibly weak graph theory if one digs deep enough into the regional conference circuit.
This work is deep, relying on an understanding of generating functions that many casual practitioners don't possess. If the proof has a flaw, the issue will be technical and difficult to uncover. I love how people take the obvious bet that this is likely wrong because so many proof attempts have failed. In a prediction market, I'd bet on this proof being right.