Tratnik et al.’s nanotube resonance-graph conjecture
Tratnik et al.’s nanotube resonance-graph conjecture
The conjecture asserts that for every matchable nanotube , its resonance graph is disconnected. Here is the graph whose vertices are the perfect matchings of , with two perfect matchings and adjacent when there is a hexagonal face such that .
Equivalent formulations 1
Other statements of this same problem, merged from separate entries. Each is equivalent to the statement above — proving any one settles them all.
Connectivity criterion for nanotube resonance graphs
For every matchable nanotube , the resonance graph is connected if and only if every nice cycle of is an I-cycle or bounds a hexagonal system.
source: Liang, Lingmei, Zhang, and Heping, “The resonance graphs of coronoid systems and nanotubes”
Sources & referencesView supporting material
Primary source
Additional references
- The resonance graphs of coronoid systems and nanotubes — arXiv — Liang, Lingmei, Zhang, Heping
Progress summary
A new paper says the conjecture is false by giving a nanotube with a connected resonance graph, although the result has not yet been independently verified.
Tratnik et al.’s conjecture asserts that the resonance graph of every matchable nanotube is disconnected. A new paper directly challenges this assertion while confirming it for the narrower class of elementary nanotubes.
August 2026 counterexample
Liang, Lingmei, Zhang, and Heping report a matchable nanotube with connected and state that infinitely many such examples exist. They also give a criterion: is connected exactly when every nice cycle is an I-cycle or bounds a hexagonal system; for elementary nanotubes, equality of flows across every cut segment characterizes resonance-graph components. The paper is a direct arXiv report, with no independent verification or referee assessment found.
Current status (as of August 2026): The universal conjecture is claimed false by an explicit connected resonance graph, while the elementary-nanotube case is reported to remain true; independent confirmation is pending.
Solutions 0
Sign in to submit a solution.
No solutions have been posted yet.