ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Schiffer's Conjecture and the Pompeiu Problem

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.

schiffer-conjectureAnalysisposed by D. Pompeiu (1929); reformulated via Neumann eigenfunctions by M. M. Schiffer (1957), 1929recorded: disproved

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

If a smooth bounded domain in Rn\mathbb{R}^n admits a Neumann eigenfunction of the Laplacian that is constant on the boundary, must the domain be a ball? Pompeiu posed an equivalent integral-equation form in 1929; Schiffer's 1957 reformulation via Neumann eigenfunctions is the version on Yau's 1982 list (Problem 80), and Williams proved the two formulations logically equivalent for simply connected domains in 1976. Cao-Labora and de Dios Pont construct infinitely many planar domains with large NN-fold symmetry that are not balls and admit such an eigenfunction, disproving Schiffer's conjecture; applying Williams' classical reduction to the same domains (their Corollary 1.2) disproves Pompeiu's problem as well.

Context

Also refutes the 1929 Pompeiu problem: Corollary 1.2 applies Williams' classical 1976 equivalence to the same constructed domains, so this is one construction settling both, not two separate results.

A flagship problem of spectral geometry for seven decades: Problem 80 on Yau's list, equivalent to the 1929 Pompeiu problem, with a partial-results literature running since the 1970s.

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. 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.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptGPT-5.6, Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Fable 5 with Gonzalo Cao-Labora, Jaume de Dios Pont ·
    AI involvement
    ai assisted
    a person led the work and used a model along the way.
    models
    GPT-5.6, Claude Opus 4.8, Claude Fable 5
    people
    Gonzalo Cao-Labora, Jaume de Dios Pont

    Models with coding harnesses were used in multiple parts of the research: numerically verifying the asymptotic estimates, producing first drafts of the proofs of the Bessel function estimates, and helping with exposition.

    The Lean4 verification of the proof was written by GPT 5.6 from an early draft of the paper. The novel construction strategy is the authors' own.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    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.