Grothendieck's Finite Flat Group Scheme Order Question
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
Grothendieck asked whether every finite locally free group scheme of order is killed by (its -th convolution power map equals the unit). The counterexample is an order-4 group scheme not killed by 4 (killed only by 8); since Deligne settled the commutative case, it is necessarily non-commutative over a non-reduced base.
Context
A Grothendieck question open for sixty years, known through arithmetic geometry.
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. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
OpenAI's Sol found an explicit counterexample, a rank-4 Hopf algebra over whose order-4 group scheme is not killed by 4, and Claude Fable 5 autoformalized the full argument in Lean within hours. Akhil Mathew directed the work and submitted it to Mathlib; Kevin Buzzard independently compiled and checked the 1076-line proof.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Lean formalization of the result
Machine-checked in Lean and submitted to Mathlib (PR #41748, opened 2026-07-14, disclosed as built with OpenAI's Codex and Anthropic's Claude under the author's direction). Kevin Buzzard independently compiled the 1076-line proof and confirmed it uses only standard mathlib definitions. Under active expert review (Wieser, Brasca) and not yet merged; no journal publication yet, but the counterexample is explicit and kernel-checked.
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
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.