Kusner's Conjecture on Equilateral Sets in $\ell_p^n$
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
Kusner conjectured in 1983 that the maximum number of points in that are pairwise at -distance one is exactly for every , as in the Euclidean case. False: an explicit configuration of equilateral points exists for some exponent, placing the infimum of exponents at which the conjecture fails in . The configuration is the unique solution of an explicit polynomial system with rational coefficients in a rational box, established in exact arithmetic.
Context
A named 1983 conjecture in discrete geometry with a real literature (Alon-Pudlak among others) and forty-three years of standing. Well known within convexity and discrete geometry, less so outside - level with the named-conjecture band at 30.
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 disclosure: GPT-5.6 Sol assisted in implementing the computational search strategy in code, and Claude Fable 5 was used as a tool in drafting. No mathematical step is attributed to a model by name, but the search that produced the configuration is the load-bearing computation.
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.