ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Belinskaya's Theorem for Measure-Preserving Flows

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.

belinskaya-theorem-measure-preserving-flowsAnalysisposed by François Le Maître and Konstantin Slutskyrecorded: solved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Two free ergodic measure-preserving flows whose L1\mathrm{L}^1 full groups are isomorphic as abstract groups are conjugate up to a scalar time change. This proves the flow analogue of Belinskaya's theorem, answering a question posed by François Le Maître and the author.

Context

Answers a question the author had posed with Le Maître, transferring a classical rigidity theorem from transformations to flows.

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 attemptGPT-5 + Claude Opus 4 with Konstantin Slutsky ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5 + Claude Opus 4
    people
    Konstantin Slutsky

    The paper states that the criterion the proof turns on, and its application, were discovered autonomously by a two-agent AI system running GPT-5 and Claude Opus 4 in a research loop; Codex was used separately for proofreading and stylistic editing.

    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.