<p>Gallian's dynamic survey on graph labeling mentions Gnang's preprints which claim to resolve the graceful tree conjecture. The <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03178" rel="nofollow noreferrer">latest version</a> of this preprint dates 2023 August. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07614" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Previous version</a> of the preprint goes back to 2018; another <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05551" rel="nofollow noreferrer">related preprint</a> by Gnang and Wass dates 2020.</p>
<p><strong>What is the mathematics community's view of Gnang's preprint?</strong><br />
If it is not deemed correct, <em>has an error been found?</em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-24T09:22:34.073Z
When you update a post, please incorporate the changes directly into the text so that it reads naturally for someone who sees it for the first time. Do not put it after “Update:”, “Edit:”, or a similar note while leaving the original content in place. I took the liberty of removing the speculative thoughts about what is or is not a good sign for the correctness of the paper that were claimed to be retracted in the update.
Emil Jeřábek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-24T20:47:38.343Z
He also has another preprint about the same purported proof of the same conjecture https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07614 with 12 revisions
gexahedron
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-25T05:47:51.027Z
@gexahedron Yes, I have mentioned this in the question. But, this was removed when a moderator edited the question for focus (the edit has really helped with the focus, and I appreciate it). For me, the preprints (dating back to 2018) having no comments from the authors looked like a bad sign; but, this is not a telltale sign.
Cyriac Antony
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-25T08:37:05.740Z
@CyriacAntony To me it's a bit strange that it was removed, because as far as I understand the approach is the same, both in 1811.07164 and in 2202.03178. What do you mean by "having no comments from the authors"?
gexahedron
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-26T05:31:15.347Z
I meant no comments as to why they revised it (important since there is large text overlap). But, it is okay if no major changes are there. Still, I did expect some comment about the new and old preprint (e.g. A comment in the old preprint stating that a revised version is available at url ...).
Cyriac Antony
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-26T19:18:48.540Z
I am not a moderator. And it wasn’t my intention to remove the link to the old preprint (which is indeed relevant) as part of the edit; sorry about that.
Emil Jeřábek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-26T19:24:11.650Z
Oh wait, I didn’t remove it, did I? The link was not included in any revision of the question, as far as I can tell. But I can as well put it in.
Emil Jeřábek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-27T05:15:30.917Z
No problem. As I said, I appreciate the edit done. I shall add the link in bracket.
Cyriac Antony
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-27T07:11:35.273Z
I already added it. So now it is there twice.
Emil Jeřábek
<graph-theory>
Is Gnang's proof of Graceful Tree Conjecture correct?
Cyriac Antony
# Is Gnang's proof of Graceful Tree Conjecture correct?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-06-22)

Gallian's dynamic survey on graph labeling mentions Gnang's preprints which claim to resolve the graceful tree conjecture. The [latest version](https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03178) of this preprint dates 2023 August. [Previous version](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07614) of the preprint goes back to 2018; another [related preprint](https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05551) by Gnang and Wass dates 2020.

**What is the mathematics community's view of Gnang's preprint?**  
If it is not deemed correct, *has an error been found?*

**Tags:** graph-theory
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: When you update a post, please incorporate the changes directly into the text so that it reads naturally for someone who sees it for the first time. Do not put it after “Update:”, “Edit:”, or a similar note while leaving the original content in place. I took the liberty of removing the speculative thoughts about what is or is not a good sign for the correctness of the paper that were claimed to be retracted in the update.  
> **username_2**: He also has another preprint about the same purported proof of the same conjecture https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07614 with 12 revisions  
> **username_0**: @gexahedron Yes, I have mentioned this in the question. But, this was removed when a moderator edited the question for focus (the edit has really helped with the focus, and I appreciate it). For me, the preprints (dating back to 2018) having no comments from the authors looked like a bad sign; but, this is not a telltale sign.  
> **username_2**: @CyriacAntony To me it's a bit strange that it was removed, because as far as I understand the approach is the same, both in 1811.07164 and in 2202.03178. What do you mean by "having no comments from the authors"?  
> **username_0**: I meant no comments as to why they revised it (important since there is large text overlap). But, it is okay if no major changes are there. Still, I did expect some comment about the new and old preprint (e.g. A comment in the old preprint stating that a revised version is available at url ...).  
> **username_1**: I am not a moderator. And it wasn’t my intention to remove the link to the old preprint (which is indeed relevant) as part of the edit; sorry about that.  
> **username_1**: Oh wait, I didn’t remove it, did I? The link was not included in any revision of the question, as far as I can tell. But I can as well put it in.  
> **username_0**: No problem. As I said, I appreciate the edit done. I shall add the link in bracket.  
> **username_1**: I already added it. So now it is there twice.  

---

## 0 answers

