Peculiarities in low dimensions or low order or etcResults true in a dimension and false for higher dimensionsWhat are the big problems in probability theory?Low dimensional nilpotent Lie algebrasReference request for relative bordism coinciding with homology in low dimensionsDimensions of orbit spacesRestricted Lie algebras of low dimensionThom's Principle: rich structures are more numerous in low dimensionStochastic Resonance in Infinite DimensionsConic sections in high dimensionsLow difference between sums of blocksWhat are some of results in low dimensional statistics that do not hold in high dimensions?Order of magnitude of extremely abundant numbers and RH
Peculiarities in low dimensions or low order or etc
Results true in a dimension and false for higher dimensionsWhat are the big problems in probability theory?Low dimensional nilpotent Lie algebrasReference request for relative bordism coinciding with homology in low dimensionsDimensions of orbit spacesRestricted Lie algebras of low dimensionThom's Principle: rich structures are more numerous in low dimensionStochastic Resonance in Infinite DimensionsConic sections in high dimensionsLow difference between sums of blocksWhat are some of results in low dimensional statistics that do not hold in high dimensions?Order of magnitude of extremely abundant numbers and RH
$begingroup$
I have been pondering about certain conjectures and theorems viewed as either low vs high dimensions, or smaller vs larger primes, or anything of the sort "low vs high order". Let me mention a couple of such mathematical phenomena that might be more familiar.
Poincaré's conjecture (now a theorem) in dimension $3$ persisted much longer than in higher dimensions.
Congruence modulo primes for the partition function $p(n)$ lingers for primes $p=2, 3$ while a recent work on Maass forms settles such for higher primes.
Hoping that these citations shed light, I like to ask:
QUESTION. Do you know of conjectures (problems) which manifested to be either notoriously harder or unsolved for "lower dimensions/orders/primes" compared to their "higher dimensional/order/prime" cousins?
reference-request gm.general-mathematics conjectures
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been pondering about certain conjectures and theorems viewed as either low vs high dimensions, or smaller vs larger primes, or anything of the sort "low vs high order". Let me mention a couple of such mathematical phenomena that might be more familiar.
Poincaré's conjecture (now a theorem) in dimension $3$ persisted much longer than in higher dimensions.
Congruence modulo primes for the partition function $p(n)$ lingers for primes $p=2, 3$ while a recent work on Maass forms settles such for higher primes.
Hoping that these citations shed light, I like to ask:
QUESTION. Do you know of conjectures (problems) which manifested to be either notoriously harder or unsolved for "lower dimensions/orders/primes" compared to their "higher dimensional/order/prime" cousins?
reference-request gm.general-mathematics conjectures
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
2
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
1
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have been pondering about certain conjectures and theorems viewed as either low vs high dimensions, or smaller vs larger primes, or anything of the sort "low vs high order". Let me mention a couple of such mathematical phenomena that might be more familiar.
Poincaré's conjecture (now a theorem) in dimension $3$ persisted much longer than in higher dimensions.
Congruence modulo primes for the partition function $p(n)$ lingers for primes $p=2, 3$ while a recent work on Maass forms settles such for higher primes.
Hoping that these citations shed light, I like to ask:
QUESTION. Do you know of conjectures (problems) which manifested to be either notoriously harder or unsolved for "lower dimensions/orders/primes" compared to their "higher dimensional/order/prime" cousins?
reference-request gm.general-mathematics conjectures
$endgroup$
I have been pondering about certain conjectures and theorems viewed as either low vs high dimensions, or smaller vs larger primes, or anything of the sort "low vs high order". Let me mention a couple of such mathematical phenomena that might be more familiar.
Poincaré's conjecture (now a theorem) in dimension $3$ persisted much longer than in higher dimensions.
Congruence modulo primes for the partition function $p(n)$ lingers for primes $p=2, 3$ while a recent work on Maass forms settles such for higher primes.
Hoping that these citations shed light, I like to ask:
QUESTION. Do you know of conjectures (problems) which manifested to be either notoriously harder or unsolved for "lower dimensions/orders/primes" compared to their "higher dimensional/order/prime" cousins?
reference-request gm.general-mathematics conjectures
reference-request gm.general-mathematics conjectures
edited May 9 at 21:41
community wiki
T. Amdeberhan
1
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
2
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
1
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
2
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
1
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00
1
1
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
2
2
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
1
1
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
1
1
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general, Galois representations $operatornameGal(overlinemathbbQ/mathbbQ)tooperatornameGL_d(mathbbZ_ell)$ are tamely ramified at primes $pge d+1$, which makes it much easier to analyze what's happening at large primes. To give a concrete example, consider Ogg's formula that relates the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve $E/mathbbQ$:
$$ operatornameord_p(N_E) = operatornameord_p(Delta_E)+1-m_p, $$
where $m_p$ is the number of irreducible components on the fiber of the Neron model at $p$. This is quite easy to prove for $pge5$, Ogg proved it for $p=3$ in 1967, and Saito finally proved it for $p=2$ in 1988. (Actually, they proved the analogous formula over all number fields.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In probability theory, critical percolation on the integer lattice is known to hold in dimensions $2$ and $ge 19$, but as far as I know, it remains open in dimensions 3 through 18. (I recall hearing that the techniques used for high dimensions could perhaps, with sufficient hard work, be extended down to dimension 16 or so, but not further.)
See this nice discussion by Louigi Addario-Berry.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The whole "chaos" program would fit into this category. When statistical physics (i.e. dynamics of large number of particles aka N-body problem for large N) and erogdic theory were developed in early 20th century, there was a wide belief that dynamical systems are in some sense generically ergodic, called the "Ergodic hypothesis".
Almost half a century later KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theorem resolved the issue in negative, showing (loosely) that for low dimensional systems, such as the three-body problem, generic perturbations of integrable systems would not lead to ergodicity. Rather, the phase space remains a mix of chaotic and ordered zones.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All irreducible spherical buildings (i.e. with finite Weyl group) of rank greater than 2 are associated to simple algebraic or classical groups. This is not the case for rank $leq$ 2.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f331141%2fpeculiarities-in-low-dimensions-or-low-order-or-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general, Galois representations $operatornameGal(overlinemathbbQ/mathbbQ)tooperatornameGL_d(mathbbZ_ell)$ are tamely ramified at primes $pge d+1$, which makes it much easier to analyze what's happening at large primes. To give a concrete example, consider Ogg's formula that relates the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve $E/mathbbQ$:
$$ operatornameord_p(N_E) = operatornameord_p(Delta_E)+1-m_p, $$
where $m_p$ is the number of irreducible components on the fiber of the Neron model at $p$. This is quite easy to prove for $pge5$, Ogg proved it for $p=3$ in 1967, and Saito finally proved it for $p=2$ in 1988. (Actually, they proved the analogous formula over all number fields.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, Galois representations $operatornameGal(overlinemathbbQ/mathbbQ)tooperatornameGL_d(mathbbZ_ell)$ are tamely ramified at primes $pge d+1$, which makes it much easier to analyze what's happening at large primes. To give a concrete example, consider Ogg's formula that relates the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve $E/mathbbQ$:
$$ operatornameord_p(N_E) = operatornameord_p(Delta_E)+1-m_p, $$
where $m_p$ is the number of irreducible components on the fiber of the Neron model at $p$. This is quite easy to prove for $pge5$, Ogg proved it for $p=3$ in 1967, and Saito finally proved it for $p=2$ in 1988. (Actually, they proved the analogous formula over all number fields.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general, Galois representations $operatornameGal(overlinemathbbQ/mathbbQ)tooperatornameGL_d(mathbbZ_ell)$ are tamely ramified at primes $pge d+1$, which makes it much easier to analyze what's happening at large primes. To give a concrete example, consider Ogg's formula that relates the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve $E/mathbbQ$:
$$ operatornameord_p(N_E) = operatornameord_p(Delta_E)+1-m_p, $$
where $m_p$ is the number of irreducible components on the fiber of the Neron model at $p$. This is quite easy to prove for $pge5$, Ogg proved it for $p=3$ in 1967, and Saito finally proved it for $p=2$ in 1988. (Actually, they proved the analogous formula over all number fields.)
$endgroup$
In general, Galois representations $operatornameGal(overlinemathbbQ/mathbbQ)tooperatornameGL_d(mathbbZ_ell)$ are tamely ramified at primes $pge d+1$, which makes it much easier to analyze what's happening at large primes. To give a concrete example, consider Ogg's formula that relates the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve $E/mathbbQ$:
$$ operatornameord_p(N_E) = operatornameord_p(Delta_E)+1-m_p, $$
where $m_p$ is the number of irreducible components on the fiber of the Neron model at $p$. This is quite easy to prove for $pge5$, Ogg proved it for $p=3$ in 1967, and Saito finally proved it for $p=2$ in 1988. (Actually, they proved the analogous formula over all number fields.)
answered May 9 at 21:46
community wiki
Joe Silverman
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In probability theory, critical percolation on the integer lattice is known to hold in dimensions $2$ and $ge 19$, but as far as I know, it remains open in dimensions 3 through 18. (I recall hearing that the techniques used for high dimensions could perhaps, with sufficient hard work, be extended down to dimension 16 or so, but not further.)
See this nice discussion by Louigi Addario-Berry.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In probability theory, critical percolation on the integer lattice is known to hold in dimensions $2$ and $ge 19$, but as far as I know, it remains open in dimensions 3 through 18. (I recall hearing that the techniques used for high dimensions could perhaps, with sufficient hard work, be extended down to dimension 16 or so, but not further.)
See this nice discussion by Louigi Addario-Berry.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In probability theory, critical percolation on the integer lattice is known to hold in dimensions $2$ and $ge 19$, but as far as I know, it remains open in dimensions 3 through 18. (I recall hearing that the techniques used for high dimensions could perhaps, with sufficient hard work, be extended down to dimension 16 or so, but not further.)
See this nice discussion by Louigi Addario-Berry.
$endgroup$
In probability theory, critical percolation on the integer lattice is known to hold in dimensions $2$ and $ge 19$, but as far as I know, it remains open in dimensions 3 through 18. (I recall hearing that the techniques used for high dimensions could perhaps, with sufficient hard work, be extended down to dimension 16 or so, but not further.)
See this nice discussion by Louigi Addario-Berry.
answered May 9 at 21:44
community wiki
Nate Eldredge
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The whole "chaos" program would fit into this category. When statistical physics (i.e. dynamics of large number of particles aka N-body problem for large N) and erogdic theory were developed in early 20th century, there was a wide belief that dynamical systems are in some sense generically ergodic, called the "Ergodic hypothesis".
Almost half a century later KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theorem resolved the issue in negative, showing (loosely) that for low dimensional systems, such as the three-body problem, generic perturbations of integrable systems would not lead to ergodicity. Rather, the phase space remains a mix of chaotic and ordered zones.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The whole "chaos" program would fit into this category. When statistical physics (i.e. dynamics of large number of particles aka N-body problem for large N) and erogdic theory were developed in early 20th century, there was a wide belief that dynamical systems are in some sense generically ergodic, called the "Ergodic hypothesis".
Almost half a century later KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theorem resolved the issue in negative, showing (loosely) that for low dimensional systems, such as the three-body problem, generic perturbations of integrable systems would not lead to ergodicity. Rather, the phase space remains a mix of chaotic and ordered zones.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The whole "chaos" program would fit into this category. When statistical physics (i.e. dynamics of large number of particles aka N-body problem for large N) and erogdic theory were developed in early 20th century, there was a wide belief that dynamical systems are in some sense generically ergodic, called the "Ergodic hypothesis".
Almost half a century later KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theorem resolved the issue in negative, showing (loosely) that for low dimensional systems, such as the three-body problem, generic perturbations of integrable systems would not lead to ergodicity. Rather, the phase space remains a mix of chaotic and ordered zones.
$endgroup$
The whole "chaos" program would fit into this category. When statistical physics (i.e. dynamics of large number of particles aka N-body problem for large N) and erogdic theory were developed in early 20th century, there was a wide belief that dynamical systems are in some sense generically ergodic, called the "Ergodic hypothesis".
Almost half a century later KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theorem resolved the issue in negative, showing (loosely) that for low dimensional systems, such as the three-body problem, generic perturbations of integrable systems would not lead to ergodicity. Rather, the phase space remains a mix of chaotic and ordered zones.
answered May 9 at 21:52
community wiki
Piyush Grover
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.
$endgroup$
Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.
answered May 9 at 22:31
community wiki
Gerry Myerson
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All irreducible spherical buildings (i.e. with finite Weyl group) of rank greater than 2 are associated to simple algebraic or classical groups. This is not the case for rank $leq$ 2.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All irreducible spherical buildings (i.e. with finite Weyl group) of rank greater than 2 are associated to simple algebraic or classical groups. This is not the case for rank $leq$ 2.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
All irreducible spherical buildings (i.e. with finite Weyl group) of rank greater than 2 are associated to simple algebraic or classical groups. This is not the case for rank $leq$ 2.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
$endgroup$
All irreducible spherical buildings (i.e. with finite Weyl group) of rank greater than 2 are associated to simple algebraic or classical groups. This is not the case for rank $leq$ 2.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_(mathematics)
answered May 10 at 5:59
community wiki
Martin Seysen
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f331141%2fpeculiarities-in-low-dimensions-or-low-order-or-etc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
May 9 at 21:43
2
$begingroup$
"Poincaré conjecture persisted in higher dimension": this depends on the way it's formulated. "every simply connected compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": false in each dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": true in every dimension $ge 4$; "every contractible compact smooth $d$-manifold is diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere": open in dimension 4, true in dimension 5, 6, 12, false in most dimensions $ge 7$ including all large enough dimensions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 9 at 22:05
1
$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan♦
May 10 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@S.Carnahan oops, of course not, I should say "having the homotopy type of the $d$-sphere". (Maybe for a closed connected $d$-manifold it's equivalent assuming vanishing of $pi_i$ for $i<d$.)
$endgroup$
– YCor
May 10 at 6:00