Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by oliculipolicula 12 days ago
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/20790734625601334...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06959

1 comments

>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)

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