Problem detail · source-aware

Wegner's Piercing Conjecture for Rectangles

resolvedconfidence 70%

VibeMathed reports this item as resolved. VibeMath preserves that report as a source assertion and has not independently authored a plain-language mathematical explanation.

Precise statement

Wegner conjectured in 1965 that every finite family $\mathcal{R}$ of axis-parallel rectangles satisfies $\tau(\mathcal{R}) \le 2\nu(\mathcal{R}) - 1$, where $\tau$ is the minimum number of piercing points and $\nu$ the largest pairwise-disjoint subfamily. False, by an explicit triangle-free counterexample.

The source statement is reproduced for indexing with attribution. Mathematical correctness requires domain-expert or mechanical review. VibeMath has not independently audited statement fidelity, correctness, priority, or novelty.

What AI did

GPT-5.5 Pro, Codex

The authors say the construction of the initial counterexamples relied heavily on trial and error, and that GPT-5.5 Pro was used extensively to search for suitable constructions. Codex drew the figures and drafted portions of the text. They note the correctness of the proofs does not rest on the auxiliary machine verifications.

Provider: OpenAI · Prompt public: unknown · Independence: unknown

Verification boundary

unreviewed

The refutation is an explicit finite family of rectangles, so it reduces to a finite piercing computation. arXiv preprint, not peer-reviewed.

Correctness: unknown · statement fidelity: unaudited · peer review: none

Timeline

  1. arXiv:2606.17854 - Counterexamples to Wegner's Conjecture for Rectangles

    VibeMathed reports this item as resolved. VibeMath preserves that report as a source assertion and has not independently authored a plain-language mathematical explanation.

Known method families

construction (source-reported)

Source-reported tools: construction.

Independent: unknown · difference confidence: 0

What remains uncertain

VibeMath has not independently audited the mathematical statement, proof, or novelty claim.

  • VibeMath has not independently verified the mathematical claim.
  • AI-attempt independence and training-data exposure are unknown unless explicitly documented.
  • VibeMath has not independently audited the mathematical statement, proof, or novelty claim.