combinatoricsJul 26, 2026Significance 5/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→disproved
Is the zero forcing number of every connected graph with maximum degree 3 at most its independence number plus one? A connected 24-vertex subcubic graph with independence number 9 and zero forcing number 11 refutes this 2017 TxGraffiti conjecture, and a 36-vertex cubic variant refutes the cubic form: Z=α+2 is attained.
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
combinatoricsJul 30, 2026Significance 5/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→disproved
Infinite family of counterexamples; mathematical argument internally checked, with external verification and novelty review pending.
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
number-theoryJun 12, 2026Significance 5/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→disproved
For an odd prime p, do Sun's normalized trigonometric permanents satisfy sp<0⟺p≡5(mod12) and sp′<0⟺p≡7(mod8)? Exact computation at p=29 refutes both sign laws.
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
analysisAug 7, 2026Significance 4/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→proved
Agulnick and Busick-Warner exhibited a family of fifth-order ambiguities on the exact unit support U30 and conjectured that it was not a complete classification because it did not use the full field Q(ζ30). This work proves the complete classification. The larger field enlarges the common amplitude α, while every relative ambiguity remains a norm-one parameter in Q(ζ6). Th…
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
combinatoricsAug 14, 2026Significance 4/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→disproved
Sivaraman asked whether perfect divisibility is characterized by its chromatic consequence: is a graph G perfectly divisible if and only if χ(H)≤(2ω(H)+1) for every induced subgraph H of G? False: the Paley graph P(17) satisfies the chromatic bound hereditarily but is not perfectly divisible.
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
combinatoricsJul 30, 2026Significance 4/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→disproved
no constant-bound repair of the conjecture is possible
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
algorithms-optimizationAug 4, 2026Significance 4/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→proved
Fixed four-terminal planar DAG; positive route-cost differences for m≥2, with non-attained suprema; signed/zero only for m=1, whose attainment is unstated. No topology-wide/unrestricted-planar claim.
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
combinatoricsJul 24, 2026Significance 3/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→proved
Opus 4.8 constructed a branch of the stated depth, giving a lower bound, and believed it had a matching upper bound; that proof was wrong and the statement stayed a conjecture. FABLE 5 later proved it. In the author's summary of the method: "The proof turns conjugation, near s, into base-p arithmetic." A cycle near the fixed point splits into a coarse base permutation and a vector of carries in Z/p,…
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review
combinatoricsAug 14, 2026Significance 3/100Registry: unreviewed
Prior state unknown→proved
A tournament orients every pair in a round-robin (winner → loser). The score sequence is the sorted win-count list. Reversing a directed 3-cycle never changes scores, so score-equivalent tournaments can look structurally different.
Question: Which linear combinations of induced k-subtournament type-counts are score-determined — identical across all tournaments sharing a score sequence, at any host size?
Answer: Ex…
●Source○Replay○Reproduced○Formal proof○Statement audit○External check○Expert review○Peer review