The Modified Lyons–Sidorova Conjecture for Bounded-Variation Paths
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
For a continuous bounded-variation path with signature , logarithmic signature and increment , the modified Lyons–Sidorova conjecture predicts the structure of when . The paper proves it: when , and otherwise a prefix of the centred path gives .
Context
This is the MODIFIED conjecture, not the original Lyons-Sidorova one, and it is proved for continuous bounded-variation paths. Prior work had a line-image result under the stronger assumption of infinite radius on every subinterval; this removes that assumption.
A named conjecture of Lyons and Sidorova about when a path signature determines the path up to conjugacy, in the setting of bounded variation.
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 author reports using ChatGPT for mathematical exploration, critical examination of arguments, testing of intermediate proof strategies, and drafting and editing, and states she reviewed and revised all AI-assisted material and takes full responsibility. The model is not credited with producing the proof.
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.