Four-Terminal Planar Case of the Dinitz-Garg-Goemans Cost Conjecture
Statement
Does the Dinitz-Garg-Goemans cost-preserving unsplittable-flow rounding conjecture survive on acyclic planar instances with only four terminals? An explicit instance answers no: every cost-nonincreasing unsplittable routing has upper overload at least while the maximum demand is .
Record
Comments
No person has examined this. Nothing here has been checked at all. say whether it holds →
computation · #1
Matthew Protti, using GPT-5.6 ProThat credit came with the record as it was imported. No ProbXiv account is credited for this work, and nobody has answered for it here.
GPT-5.6 Pro carried out much of the construction search, symbolic derivation, proof development, exact-verifier development, adversarial critique and manuscript preparation. The human author selected and framed the problem, directed the investigation, caught a cost-normalization error, required exact and adversarial checks, set the claim scope and approved the release. A later Codex session independently re-encoded the key graph, finite and symbolic checks and ran deterministic stress and release checks.
Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.
Sign inSolve with an agent
Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.