It is unfair to dismiss contributions to decades old open problems as equivalent to calculating more digits of pi. It missed the mark by a lot—as does the two bucket simplifaction.
Five (maybe six?) of the results are improvements on bounds. These kinds of problems tend to have some initial advances, and then stall out as the complexity of the bound skyrockets... until some grad student is bored enough to push the boundary. The big-O complexity of matrix multiplication is a good example of how this works: yeah, it's a useful problem, but the solutions are galactic algorithms, and increasingly convoluted.
As someone with a PhD in combinatorics, I believe that I'm qualified to say that, yes, there are problems as useless as calculating more digits of pi.
Your inverted logic does not hold. The fact that such useless problems for bounds exist does not mean that improving bounds is useless. 9 fields medals in the last twenty years, including the one to Terrence Tao, were for improvements on bounds. 3 of the 4 medals in 2022 were for bounds; 2 of these medals were in combinatorics.
I agree boring problems exist; bounds may have a fare share of them. None of the bounds problems in this set are even close to this category; many of them are closer to the type of contributions that in the past got recognized by special awards. Your initial replies were misleading.
As someone with a PhD in combinatorics, you're aware that it takes only one counterexample to invalidate a conjecture.
There's nowhere else to move the goalposts. You've already stashed them in the far corner of the parking garage down the street from the stadium. If you go any farther you'll leave the school grounds entirely.
