Chinese science activist duels with philosopher claiming proof of maths conundrum

A Chinese philosopher claims to have proved a century-old maths conundrum. However, a science activist calls the proof a fraud.

This is the latest scene in a Chinese science soap opera on the well-known four color theorem.

In an online interview with sohu.com, one of China's major Internet portals, Li Ming, a Chinese philosopher who has got media attention and stirred up debate in cyberspace, vows that he will publish his proof by the end of the year.

Li, dubbed a "philosophy crow", claimed in his blog in April that he had proved the four color theorem using the philosophy of ancient Chinese thinker Laozi and German philosopher Kant. Li said his proof would only take a few sheets of paper.

The four color theorem, dating back to the mid-19th century, puts forward a proposition that any map can be colored using four colors in such a way that adjacent regions receive different colors. The problem is sometimes called Guthrie's problem after Francis Guthrie.

The brainteaser was proved by Appel and Haken in 1977, who constructed a computer-assisted proof that four colors were sufficient.

In June this year, Fang Zhouzi, a science activist who has uncovered many scientific frauds in China, challenged Li's claim and questioned the latter's capacity to prove a tough maths problem.

"If Li Ming is convinced that he has proved the four color theorem, he should follow scientific convention and publish his proof in a science journal for experts to review, instead of hyping it up before he even publishes his work," Fang said.

The debate escalated in early August when the philosopher challenged Fang to a deadly wager over the results of his purported proof of the theorem. The loser would be bound to commit suicide.

Internet users posted comments on Li's blog, with many saying that if Li is so confident about his proof, why does he hesitate to publish it?

Li, during an interview with Sohu.com a few days ago, said the academic environment in China is so corrupt that he is worried about plagiarism.

Fang Zhouzi, in response, wrote in his blog that scientific results are based on evidence and logic, not on a duel between two people.

"To have a duel to the death not only betrays the scientific spirit but is also inhumane," Fang wrote.

Fang called the debate a farce not worth serious treatment. He believed Li was doing it for self-promotion.

Blogs have provided a new arena for Chinese intellectuals to debate. Earlier this year, Han Han, a young writer known in the Chinese literary circle as one of the "post 80s" - i.e. a writer born in the 1980s - waged a debate with Bai Hua, a septuagenarian writer. Han attacked the literary world and Bai defended it.

Source: Xinhua