> Verdict: I checked every step and found no error. The argument appears to be a correct proof of the Cycle Double Cover conjecture, modulo two standard cited results (the reduction to loopless cubic graphs and the Jaeger–Kilpatrick 8-flow theorem, both real and well-established).
> Two caveats: this would settle a ~50-year-old open problem in three pages, so it deserves independent expert scrutiny regardless of my check; and I couldn't reach the web from here to confirm the paper's provenance or any community response, so I can't tell you its status beyond the mathematics itself.
there are models between 2-grams and 600m param models that would be good options. i don't expect a 2-gram to do very well here. also i'm not sure why this model isn't a fine choice if it solves their problem
EU tried to ban tracking cookies. Anyone could've seen the result coming (every site now disrupts your reading). The defeatist attitude would've been right there.
I don't see how games won't just charge you a $0.01 "subscription" that lasts 5 years or various other such sidesteps. it'll just make everything more annoying.
I think the problem isn't that people don't care. It's that checking is expensive. "Only $15" isn't trivial when there's tons of claims floating around. And even when you do it people return with complaints and you'll have to redo it (see the other comments here).
> Verdict: I checked every step and found no error. The argument appears to be a correct proof of the Cycle Double Cover conjecture, modulo two standard cited results (the reduction to loopless cubic graphs and the Jaeger–Kilpatrick 8-flow theorem, both real and well-established).
> Two caveats: this would settle a ~50-year-old open problem in three pages, so it deserves independent expert scrutiny regardless of my check; and I couldn't reach the web from here to confirm the paper's provenance or any community response, so I can't tell you its status beyond the mathematics itself.