The Baum-Connes conjecture for extensions
Ralf Meyer
TL;DR
This paper presents a counterexample demonstrating that certain simplifying assumptions in the permanence property of the Baum-Connes conjecture for group extensions are invalid, highlighting the conjecture's complexity.
Contribution
It provides a counterexample showing that previous assumptions for the Baum-Connes conjecture's permanence under extensions cannot be simplified.
Findings
Counterexample invalidates simplified assumptions
Complexity of the conjecture's permanence properties
Limits on extending previous results
Abstract
This note provides a counterexample showing that the assumptions that Chabert and Echterhoff have imposed in their permanence property of the Baum-Connes conjecture for group extensions cannot be simplified.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsRings, Modules, and Algebras · Advanced Topology and Set Theory