https://twitter.com/neil_calkin/status/1605577231840948226

Earlier this year I excitedly tweeted about a new proof of the 4 color theorem: perhaps prematurely. They've now posted a paper on the arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.09835.pdf I have *not* checked the details, but it is there for all to read.

- Neil Calkin (@neil_calkin)Or how I read it on IRC:

6:44 PM <leah2> finally classical mathematics caught up! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.09835.pdf

Background: https://twitter.com/bwebste/status/1540893240337080321

@JulietteBruce12 @AndresECaicedo1 @neil_calkin I think it was announced at this conference: https://sites.google.com/view/combinatorial-enumeration/home (of course, I remember this because I was in K-W and did not go to the conference), so that would make it exactly one month.

- Ben Webster (@bwebste)hmm, no Gonthier cite?

looks like they push everything into real analysis, so probably not easy to check more formally

Eh, it's short enough they can first poke potential holes the old way — step 0 of formalization: https://mathstodon.xyz/@VinceVatter/109554954153310707 https://twitter.com/littmath/status/1605730144986988545

@NoahJSnyder @HigherGeometer Independently, I think section 4 doesn’t make sense — what is the induction in 4.2 trying to prove? If it proves all graphs in Q are 4-colorable this already implies the 4-color theorem, since every planar graph is a subgraph of a graph in Q.

- Daniel Litt (@littmath)Oh, we don't have mathstodon previews

Last updated: Jun 05 2023 at 11:01 UTC