Alphabeta Math
Open problemQuestion: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicable
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Extending the geometric support method to higher dimensions

PDF p. 16: Paragraph following Remark 6.8

Open problem

Assume the Axiom of Choice and the size conventions of the smooth-point construction. Let k be algebraically closed and let X be an affine k-variety of pure dimension d>3: its coordinate algebra is finitely generated and reduced, and every irreducible component has dimension d. Under what precise restrictions on its singularities, for example normality, can the geometric support method in the proof of the article’s Theorem 6.7 be generalized to establish FmotdK0(X)=FsmdK0(X)? Normality means that the local rings are integrally closed domains. The left side is the image in K0(X) of the degree-zero homotopy group of the dth stage of the motivic filtration; the right side is the subgroup generated by the classes of the residue sheaves of closed points at which X is smooth over k. Here K0(X) is the Grothendieck group of perfect complexes.

In particular, formulate hypotheses under which the proof’s reduction to support inside the smooth locus, correction by smooth closed points, and analysis of the remaining supported classes can be carried out in dimension d. The problem asks for a method and exact hypotheses; it does not assert that normality suffices.

Status

The article proves the corresponding third-piece statement for normal affine threefolds and expresses the belief that its geometric proof may generalize to higher dimensions for sufficiently mild singularities, mentioning normality as an example. Remark 6.8 separately reports a communicated alternative argument without normality and in arbitrary dimension, to appear in ongoing work; that report is not a proof of the requested geometric extension. No independent current-status review or solution is claimed, and this question is not a logical premise.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 3 levels

Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to three dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.

Sources