The Kim-Roush Conjecture on the Maximum of per(I-A) in Odd Order
Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.
Statement
For the set of n by n doubly stochastic matrices, Kim and Roush conjectured in 1981 that for odd n = 2k+1 > 1 the maximum of per(I-A) equals 3 times 2^(k-2), attained by an explicit block construction. Proved in full, and the maximizers are classified: they are exactly the simultaneous-permutation conjugates of that construction.
Context
Kim and Roush did not claim uniqueness; the classification of equality cases is new alongside the conjecture itself.
A named conjecture standing 45 years in the permanent literature, kept alive on Minc's recognized list of open problems involving permanents.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
The acknowledgments are one sentence and leave nothing to interpret: "The proof of this conjecture was carried out by GPT-5.6-sol and Claude Fable 5, under the guidance of the author. The author has reviewed the resulting proof arguments. Responsibility for the final text rests with the author."
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.