The Cone Theorem for Effective Fourfold Pairs in Characteristic $p > 5$
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.
Statement
Extending the minimal model program beyond threefolds in positive characteristic is a standing goal of birational geometry. Assuming the log resolution conjecture for all log pairs birational to , the cone theorem holds for projective log canonical, -factorial fourfold pairs with , over bases of positive and mixed characteristic .
Context
The minimal model program in positive characteristic is a central program of modern algebraic geometry, and the cone theorem for fourfolds is a real step it has been waiting for - conditional on log resolution, which keeps it below the unconditional band.
People
Projects
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.
Interest
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
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.
The paper's AI statement, in the author's words: he worked out the outline with all essential ingredients in Spring 2025, but one gap remained that he could not repair; he gave the unfinished proof to ChatGPT 5.6 Sol in Summer 2026 asking it to fill the gap, and it modified the approach to avoid the issue, which after further editing by hand and with Codex became the current version.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo 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
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.