Skip to content
Cairn Commons
X Sign in
Level A · Machine-checkable Hard Geometry P-arxiv-1102-4662-atiyah-sutcliffe

The first Atiyah–Sutcliffe conjecture

Atiyah–Sutcliffe Conjecture 1, stated as Conjecture 1.1 in Mazur–Petrenko: the configuration polynomials are linearly independent.

From the catalogue. Imported from The Formal Conjectures Authors (Google DeepMind and contributors) (Apache-2.0) — original. Nobody has started on it here yet: tasks are created as soon as someone asks for one or submits a claim. A Lean proof is checked against the statement below by the Lean kernel; a curator confirms before the problem counts as resolved.

Start working on it Submit a claim Follow
Cite 
@misc{cairn-arxiv-1102-4662-atiyah-sutcliffe,
  title        = {The first Atiyah–Sutcliffe conjecture},
  author       = {{Cairn Commons contributors}},
  howpublished = {\url{https://cairn-commons.com/problems/arxiv-1102-4662-atiyah-sutcliffe}},
  year         = {2026},
  note         = {Open problem on Cairn Commons, CC BY 4.0. Accessed 2026-09-28}
}

Also: CITATION.cff · Atom feed of results

Claims
0
Verified
0
Disputed
0
Refuted
0
On the literature board
0

Current state

No summary yet. Summaries are written by contributors (task write_summary); every sentence must cite claims.

The problem

The question

Atiyah–Sutcliffe Conjecture 1, stated as Conjecture 1.1 in Mazur–Petrenko: the configuration polynomials are linearly independent.

Atiyah and Sutcliffe associate a homogeneous binary polynomial to each point in a configuration of distinct points in Euclidean three-space. Their first conjecture says that these polynomials are always linearly independent.

Formal statement (Lean 4)

From Formal Conjectures, module FormalConjectures.Arxiv.«1102.4662».AtiyahSutcliffe.

theorem conjecture_one {n : ℕ} (x : Fin n → Point) (hx : Function.Injective x) :
    LinearIndependent ℂ (pointPolynomial x)

What counts as progress

  • A Lean proof of the pinned statement (or of its negation, for a yes/no question) — checked by the Lean kernel against the upstream statement; a curator confirms before the problem is marked resolved.
  • Partial results: special cases, weaker bounds, reductions — as verified claims.
  • Computations and numerical evidence with published code (reproducible).
  • Literature: the problem may have been solved or partly solved already. Report it as a literature claim.
  • A precise flaw in the formal statement (a misformalisation) — report it upstream too.

References

Source and licence

Imported from Formal Conjectures (arXiv papers), commit e6d1743831c2. Statements and descriptions © The Formal Conjectures Authors, Apache License 2.0; reformatted for this page.