The Instigator
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

I can disprove the 4-color map theorem

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,815 times Debate No: 14748
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (13)

 

m93samman

Pro

The four-color-map theorem, demonstrated here [1], is a theory that declares that "every possible geographical map can be colored with at most four colors in such a way that no two adjacent regions receive the same colour. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a border segment, not just a point." [2]

The rules for this debate are very simple.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1) In round one, my opponent will ONLY accept the debate. The definition of the four-color map theorem cannot be altered; the reason I emphasize this is because I wish to stress "possible geographical map". I do not wish to use any other definition.

2) Semantics should not be used. My opponent may NOT define any terms in round 1, or any future round.

3) In round 2, I will present a picture I have created to "disprove" the theorem. In round 2, my opponent will attempt to point out flaws in my drawing and defend the theorem. Round 3 will be my only defense, and my opponent's closing remarks.

4) Please note- this debate allows for ONE full day to argue, and 6,000 characters to argue with. If you don't have the time, please do not accept- I don't want a forfeiture.

Good luck to my opponent.

~SOURCES~

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org...

[2] http://www.wordiq.com...
LaissezFaire

Con

As per my opponent's request, I will only accept the challenge in this round. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
m93samman

Pro

I thank my esteemable opponent for accepting this debate, and look forward to a good exchange.

Here [1] is a "possible geographical map" that I have drawn out, with the addition of two photos.

The two photos I used can be seen larger, here: [2], [3]

~~~ANALYSIS OF PHOTO~~~

Labled in the photo are 5 hypothetical countries; they are named "1", "2", "3", "4", and "5". The country that is in question is country "5", hence the lack of color (unless you consider white). What previously used color could be used to fill 5, without touching an adjacent nation/state? "5" borders all of the remaining nations, somewhere or other.

As a preemptive response, notice the two photos to the right.

We see Michigan. Michigan is a single state; it is also discontinuous. This makes country "5" legal, by the standards of the shape of a country. Meanwhile, the second photo shows the country of "Lesotho"; this nation is entirely engulfed by South Africa, leaving it with no bordering country except for South Africa, which goes all the way around it.

My country "5" is a hybrid of Michigan and Lesotho; it is discontinuous, and part of it is engulfed. For this reason, country "5" requires a fifth color, which I will offer to be burnt orange because I go to college at UT Austin.

I wish my opponent luck, and look forward to his response.

PS If the link to the picture does not work, (the rich text feature has been giving me this problem) I'll repost it in the comments section.

[1] http://i56.tinypic.com...

[2] http://www.infomi.com...

[3] http://www.thecommonwealth.org...

LaissezFaire

Con

Refer back to the initial definition of the four color theorem: "every possible geographical map can be colored with at most four colors in such a way that no two adjacent regions receive the same colour. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a border segment, not just a point."

'Region' doesn't mean the same thing as 'nation.' #5 on Pro's map is one nation, but two different regions. While region was not specifically defined in the resolution, it is absurd to assume that it means the same thing as nation, especially since we are talking about a mathematical theorem. 'Four Color Theorem', referring to the mathematical problem doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual maps or countries, as having a mathematical theorem dependent on whatever the current political boundaries would be absurd. [1]

Pro does mention "geographical map", rather than just map, but that doesn't change the definition of 'region' to 'country.'

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rapid reply.

I'll keep my argument short, for there isn't much to say here.

Con writes,

"'Region' doesn't mean the same thing as 'nation.' #5 on Pro's map is one nation, but two different regions. While region was not specifically defined in the resolution, it is absurd to assume that it means the same thing as nation, especially since we are talking about a mathematical theorem."

Refer back to my round one; even to the definition; even further, look to the title of the debate. The "4-color map theorem" is what is being debated. Regardless of whether or not it is called a nation or a region, my argument holds.

Essentially, my opponent HAD to break a rule to win. He argued from semantics, distinguishing nation from region and then arguing that regions MUST be continuous. He neglects the example of Michigan, that wins me the round given the argument provided by Con. To disambiguate the issue; regions and nations are non-distinct in this debate. I'm Pro my ability to create a 4-color map, not a random arrangement of shapes that are independent as soon as their borders end. The reason there is a distinction is because countries can be split and discontinuous, as opposed to polygons and geometric figures, which can not.

Had I not cared whether we were discussing mathematical "regions" or geographical "countries", I would not have so vehemently emphasized "possible geographical map" in R1, or used Michigan and Lesotho (real states/nations) for my examples.

Furthermore, it only makes sense realistically to assume that regions don't have to be coninuous for the sake of this debate given the fact that all maps keep discontinuous nations/states the same color anyways. E.g. Michigan, the US/Alaska/Hawaii, Pacific Islands, etc.

I urge a Pro vote; Con's argument was insufficient to negate the resolution.

LaissezFaire

Con

I did not use semantics, which, by my opponent's definition, "My opponent may NOT define any terms in round 1, or any future round." I did not define region, I merely pointed out that Pro's unwritten assumption that region means the same thing as nation is wrong.

Of course, Pro may have meant countries when he said regions, but that doesn't change the fact that that isn't what the word regions means.

"He neglects the example of Michigan, that wins me the round given the argument provided by Con. To disambiguate the issue; regions and nations are non-distinct in this debate. I'm Pro my ability to create a 4-color map, not a random arrangement of shapes that are independent as soon as their borders end."
Pro's example means nothing, unless you first accept his assumption that regions means the same thing as countries or states.

"The reason there is a distinction is because countries can be split and discontinuous, as opposed to polygons and geometric figures, which can not."
There is a distinction in Pro's mind, but not in what was written during R1, which is what counts. He defined 'Four Color Theorem' to mean a specific thing, and failed to prove that he had disproved that specific thing. If he had said countries in his initial definition, which he could have, he would be right. But he didn't.

"Furthermore, it only makes sense realistically to assume that regions don't have to be coninuous for the sake of this debate given the fact that all maps keep discontinuous nations/states the same color anyways. E.g. Michigan, the US/Alaska/Hawaii, Pacific Islands, etc."
No, this assumption does not make sense. One cannot just assume that you meant something that you did not actually say. If Pro's intention was really to show your claim was true of countries, rather than regions, he could have simply said so. His actual intention was to be deliberately deceptive, by saying something that he knew was different from what he meant.

In conclusion, if Pro had meant countries when he said regions, he could have said so. He did not. Because he defined the four color theorem to mean a certain thing, his burden of proof was to show that he had a valid counter example to what he actually defined, not what he secretly meant by what the words in R1 said. He did not meet this burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
Genuidox, you're a total dumbasss bro. I feel sorry for your parents.
Posted by Genuidox 3 years ago
Genuidox
dude, that map you drew doesn't need 5 colors. the bigger region "5" can be colored with "4" and the engulfed "5" can be either "1", "2", or "3"
there is no way you can create a counter example because EVERY map is a planar graph assuming each region shares a border and not just a point. the theorem states for every planar graph, only 4 colors are needed to color in every point. Every map can be recreated with each region as a point and each border as an edge in the graph. it is called the "map" theorem because it gives the theorem a more appealing representation. Both of you guys obviously don't know this theorem and don't know enough of this math to know that Pro is obviously wrong. Con is accepting Pro's argument as correct with a flaw but that's not the case.
Come back when you actually know what a planar graph means
Posted by LaissezFaire 3 years ago
LaissezFaire
That makes a lot more sense. I was wondering why a 22 year old (from his profile) was acting like that.
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
http://i53.tinypic.com...

He's 12, in case you're wondering why I'm reciprocating childishness with him.
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
I'm trying to screencap my inbox too, but it isn't working apparently. Just read the message, I guess.
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
Sorry, ignore the first one. I meant to have this one instead http://i53.tinypic.com...
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
You want me to screen cap the message where I told him not to do that?
Posted by LaissezFaire 3 years ago
LaissezFaire
Oh, it's just your brother that votes 7-0 for you on a bunch of your debates, not your 2nd account, that's MUCH better.
Posted by m93samman 3 years ago
m93samman
My brother in Houston. At least he RFD'd. You think I'd multi-account that obviously?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, offered some great intelligble arguments. Con used semantics as was clearly not allowed in the rules. pro had bettter sources.
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 3 years ago
wmpeebles
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 3 years ago
MrCarroll
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mirza 3 years ago
Mirza
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Region was defined. Maps were not based on countries (let me use semantics: nation =/= country, sorry con). Pro succeeds with the BoP.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 3 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- M93samman clearly stated in the beginning of the debate that no denotation is allowed but his opponent broke that rule Convincing arguments-M93samman provided a variety of arguments AND fulfilled the burden of proof while his opponent only made one argument that is invalid anyways because it broke the rules Sources- LaissezFaire used Wikipedia which is NOT a reliable source because anybody can change it Spelling and grammar- apologia101 vote-bombed this debate so i decided to even it
Vote Placed by Sieben 3 years ago
Sieben
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Every *possible* geographical map? So like, hypothetical ones? Voting on source 1 of R2
Vote Placed by apologia101 3 years ago
apologia101
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There are many words in the resolution that were not defined by Pro, but Pro and everyone else expects the ords to be understood conventionally. "Region" is not conventionally equated "nation." Con's interpretation is the conventional one. Also, it would be legitimate to refer to the classic four-color map theorem to understand what a "region"is.
Vote Placed by Grape 3 years ago
Grape
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct in distinguishing between regions and countries. Calling an opponent out on the incorrect use of a word is not semantics. Pro was clearly the one appealing to semantics, which would be expected of someone trying to prove an assertion known to be false.
Vote Placed by mongeese 3 years ago
mongeese
m93sammanLaissezFaireTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won rather clearly here, as I have never seen region and nation as the same thing, and to argue so without a source makes no sense. Conduct goes to Con for not falsely invoking rules that seemed somewhat hypocritical, as Pro's argument relied on semantics. I honestly thought Con had been deceived into a loss until I read his second round.