Some clean formulas have no clean construction
- What it is
- A paper claims a finite counterexample to the Non-Cancelling-Intersections conjecture about set operations and inclusion-exclusion.
- Who did it
- Hermann Wilhelm
- What it could mean
- The numbers can add up perfectly while the promised construction is impossible. This counterexample would break a proposed bridge between tidy counting formulas and the actual sets they describe.
See the check plan
Evidence & validation
From announcement to evidence
Discovery recorded. State of Proof has not yet examined this claim.
Read the original work
Refutation of the Non-Cancelling-Intersections Conjecture ↗See the proposed checks
Source-lock the original NCI statement and 2608.19414, then reconstruct the marked-plane admissibility gap and the plane-tree-to-dot-algebra implication; highest risk is that the new tree-shaped argument does not eliminate every non-left-linear representation.
No proof docket yet
A docket is the public record of checks and open questions. This paper does not have one yet; the check plan above describes work still to do.
Explore existing proof dockets →
- What it claims
- Claims a finite lattice whose top element has no dot-algebra representation, removing the left-linearity restriction from the author's earlier 2608.19414 result and thereby refuting the NCI conjecture as stated.
- Why this could matter
- Some clean formulas have no clean construction The conjecture promised that whenever inclusion–exclusion computes a union without algebraic cancellation, the same result could be built from literal set operations. A counterexample means some tidy numerical identities have no equally tidy structural explanation.
- If it holds up
- Foundational: it would block a tempting shortcut in symbolic set reasoning: not every cancellation-free numerical identity can be converted into an equally transparent construction.
- If it does not
- The original structural hope survives, and the finite lattice construction reveals which representation step still needs repair.
- Impact horizon
- Foundational · Combinatorics · Set systems · Symbolic reasoning
- Version
- submitted 2026-08-27 17:42:42 UTC.
- Why we tracked it
- fresh explicit claimed counterexample to a named conjecture, with a finite combinatorial witness route but a dependency on a prior restricted-case paper.
- Highest-risk dependency
- that the new tree-shaped argument does not eliminate every non-left-linear representation.
- Available artifacts
- No new usable Slack packet or SocialBot signal. Attention evidence is the fresh primary submission. arXiv provides PDF, experimental HTML, and TeX source; no formal/code artifact is listed.
- Current boundary
- Intake record only; examination not started.