Skip to main content
3 of 4
added bullet points for better readability, converted bare URLs to links
Guntram
  • 4.3k
  • 4
  • 28
  • 43

The thread Widely accepted mathematical results that were later shown to be wrong? contains combinatorial examples, for example

The following three and more examples are given in [Grünbaum, Branko, An enduring error, Elem. Math. 64, No. 3, 89-101 (2009). ZBL1176.52002)]):

  • the number of of collections of 12 lines and 12 points, each incident with three of the others
  • the enumeration of 4-dimensional simple polytopes with eight facets
  • the number of uniform tilings of three-dimensional space.

More examples might be found by checking published errata/corrigenda/retractions in the field, though most are likely not due to computational errors. For example [Lam, Clement; Tonchev, Vladimir D., Classification of affine resolvable (2)-((27,9,4)) designs, J. Stat. Plann. Inference 56, No. 2, 187-202 (1996); corrigendum ibid. 86, 277-278 (2000). ZBL0874.05009] contained a wrong table with design computations, as explained in https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3758(99)00055-5.

P.S. Just saw that the question has been modified inbetween; now it's clear that not all examples above satisfy all given criteria. In fact, if we look into the set of combinatorial papers with corrections/retractions/errata/corrigenda that involve software, we obtain only 16 results, most of which have non-computational corrections. This supports the impression that these cases are relatively rare. The only example that may fulfill all criteria among them seems to be [Cormode, Graham; Jowhari, Hossein, Corrigendum to: “A second look at counting triangles in graph streams”, Theor. Comput. Sci. 683, 31-32 (2017). ZBL1370.68121.], where the algorithm needed a substantial correction which also led to a significantly modified result.

Olaf Teschke
  • 1.1k
  • 21
  • 16