ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Whether Amenability of an Algebra Depends on the Ground Field

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

amenability-base-field-independenceAlgebraposed by Yves Cornulier, 2015recorded: solved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Cornulier asked, in a MathOverflow discussion, whether amenability of a module over an associative algebra depends on the ground field. It does not: the notion is invariant under change of base field.

Context

The footnote is worth reading on its own: an author saying in print that the model earned coauthorship and that policy is what prevents it.

A MathOverflow question from a well-known mathematician: documented and real, but never a programme with a literature behind it.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt →

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptChatGPT 5.6 Sol with Be'eri Greenfeld ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    — a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    ChatGPT 5.6 Sol
    people
    Be'eri Greenfeld

    The abstract states it plainly: "A significant part of the argument is based on ideas of ChatGPT 5.6 Sol." The author goes further in a footnote on the title page: "While it is currently prohibited by arXiv policy to list AI as a coauthor, the (human) coauthor is confident that ChatGPT's contribution merits an author credit."

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.