<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Increasing the degree of a possible counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture from 100 to 108 · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.14178/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.14178/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Increasing the degree of a possible counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture from 100 to 108 — mentioned by koito17</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975286</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2204.14178:48975286</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:16:31 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;They were looking at 16 variables, degree of about 10 in each one. That search space is simply too big for a plain bruteforce. So they did some sort of filtering to reduce the search space to a pool containing &amp;quot;possible counterexamples&amp;quot;. There was also a paper giving a lower bound of about 100 for possible counterexamples in that particular framework. Later raised to 108 in https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14178 I don&amp;#x27;t remember the details very well since this was back in 2015 and wasn&amp;#x27;t really involved in the research. Consider this to be some sort of telephone game between what I heard in 2015…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2204.14178/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.AG</category></item></channel></rss>
