Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: A Simple Proof of The Four Color Theorem
Replies: 10   Last Post: Jul 3, 2013 6:36 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
b92057@yahoo.com

Posts: 1,187
Registered: 4/18/05
Re: A Simple Proof of The Four Color Theorem
Posted: Jul 2, 2013 7:42 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:23:46 AM UTC-7, quasi wrote:
> bill wrote:
>
>
>

> >Kempe's method was accepted as proof of the FCT until
>
> >Heawood created his counter-example.
>
> >
>
> >Suppose that there was a simple way to 4-color Heawood's graph
>
> >without worrying about the problem of "tangled chains"? Would
>
> >that be sufficient for a proof?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> Heawood's graph is a counterexample to Kempe's proposed coloring
>
> strategy. According to Kempe's claimed proof, Heawood's graph can
>
> be 4-colored by a specific strategy used in the proof. Heawood
>
> identifies a specific planar graph which, if one follows Kempe's
>
> coloring strategy, then two adjacent vertices will be forced to
>
> have the same color. The result is to show that Kempe's proof is
>
> invalid as a proof of 4-colorability for planar graphs.
>

If Kempe's strategy had been applied to the coloriing with the two adjacent vertices with the dame color; it would have been successful.

Why do we expect Kempe's strategy to succeed on the first trial when no other method is under the same restrictions?

If Kempe is to be allowed only one chance; how about a slight change to Heawood's coloring before Kempe takes over?

bill







>
> However, Heawood's graph _is_ a planar graph, hence it _can_ be
>
> 4-colored (and probably easily so). So if you show a 4-coloring
>
> of Heawood's graph, that reveals nothing we don't already know.
>
>
>
> quasi





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.