How is it possible that the four color theorem does not have

>>8827678
>How is it possible that the four color theorem does not have an elegant proof yet?
no one found one

>Did the creation of the shitty proof we have now even do anything to advance graph theory?
it proved the theorem

>>8827736
Simply proving a theorem means nothing. If the word of God said that the Riemann Hypothesis was true, just knowing that it was true would literally tell us nothing.

>>8827757
>Simply proving a theorem means nothing
wrong, it means the theorem is true

>If the word of God said that the Riemann Hypothesis was true
but that's not a proof

>>8827776
He's got a point, no? The proof we have might not be one from the storied "book" but aesthetics is the realm of philosophy not math. I don't disagree with you. I'd love to see a proof that was simple and immediate. I'm not sure we should suspect one exists.

>>8827757
>Simply proving a theorem means nothing.
It gives you license to use it as a premise for proving other theorems. And what more is there to math than that?

>>8827815
some proofs just require lots of calculation, there likely won't be a simpler proof of the classification of finite simple groups either

>>8827678
Check out this article
http://nautil.us/issue/0/the-story-of-nautilus/math-as-myth
Starts off about the fibonacci sequence but talks a bit about our desire for "elegant proofs". Truth is, a lot of problems will never have them. Look at the proof for fermat's last theorem. Such a simply stated problem yet the proof is over 100 pages of absurdity. When it was published there were like four people on the planet even capable of understanding it.

>>8827896
The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem at least created new tools for understanding weird geometry, didn't it?

>>8827678
Elegant is a subjective thing.
A proof is a proof.

>>8827961
the actual proof or the process towards finding a proof?

A proof that demonstrates a new technique advances its field. The four colour theorem is famous because of the way computers were involved in its proof, and no doubt this lead to many computer assisted proofs of other theorems.

File: 4 shapes.png (10KB, 559x575px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 559x575px

>>8827678
You can't add a 5th shape that touches all other shapes without cutting off access between two other shapes. You may color these 4 shapes if that helps you visualize it.

>>8829674
The processes are necessarily part of the proof, aren't they?

But I think "elegant" was probably the wrong word for me to use, "instructive" is a better term. After all, an elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem could potentially be less instructive than the proof we have now.

>>8827678
>the shitty proof we have
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

File: ah yes.jpg (128KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x600px

they just need to solve 3 graph coloring already, what's taking them so long :3

>>8830342
"we" as in the mathematical community, obviously.