2 ms·

Wasn't it proven true in general for n=2 (NGL I wanted to suggest someone to go for the JC using 5.6 after the CDC proof came out, but then on reflection felt

Wasn't it proven true in general for n=2 (NGL I wanted to suggest someone to go for the JC using 5.6 after the CDC proof came out, but then on reflection felt I should neither waste people's time NOR contribute to the myth of AI :) My prediction is that the bubble will burst in 2031 Q4, one year after the Riemann Hypothesis is expected to fall (according to Demis) After 2031, I will suggest going for the JC for N=4 because they would (dis)prove the Dixmier conjecture for N=2 :) https://xcancel.com/BrunsJulian1541/status/2079073462560133469#m https://xcancel.com/BrunsJulian1541/status/20790734625601334... https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06959 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06959

krackers 3mo ago
>Wasn't it proven true in general for n=2 Assuming you mean C^2 -> C^2, Do you have a link? If so it would be good to add to the wikipedia page. Also I'm not sure, but does the fact that there's a disproof for n=3 imply that it's false in all n>=3, or could there be higher dimensions where it still holds (I'd guess not since you could probably trivially "embed" this in higher dimensions in some way)
- oliculipolicula 3mo ago
  Paper linked above? Edit my bad. I was more familiar with Dixmier and doing the translation I assumed A1 -> n=2. A2 is open ofc. Maybe to fall in 2031