ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Strict Cosingularity and Adjoints for Separable Range

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.

strict-cosingularity-adjoints-separable-rangeAnalysisposed by Kevin Beanland, 2008recorded: solved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Pełczyński's duality between strictly singular and strictly cosingular operators fails without weak compactness. Beanland asked, in work with Androulakis and later on MathOverflow, for the separable-range case: the paper answers it affirmatively and shows that for separable XX, TT is strictly cosingular exactly when TT^{*} is strictly singular.

Context

A duality question left open in a 2008 paper and later posted publicly on MathOverflow, now settled in the form asked.

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. 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.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    proof attemptChatGPT 5.5 Pro with Antonio Acuaviva, Pablo Acuaviva ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    ChatGPT 5.5 Pro
    people
    Antonio Acuaviva, Pablo Acuaviva

    ChatGPT 5.5 Pro, driven directly and through Codex agents over a filesystem, generated the key ideas and the proof; the authors verified and refined it. The paper reports that the model sometimes misattributed a theorem, cited a result imprecisely, or presented steps as immediate when they still needed checking, so the human verification was load-bearing. The authors state none of these results came from the newer generation of models.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    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.