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













4












$begingroup$


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?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
















4












$begingroup$


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?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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














4












4








4


2



$begingroup$


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?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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













  • 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











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

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.)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    3












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      3












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$




















        3












        $begingroup$

        Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$




















          3












          $begingroup$

          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)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            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
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            4












            $begingroup$

            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.)






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              4












              $begingroup$

              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.)






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                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.)






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                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.)







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                answered May 9 at 21:46


























                community wiki





                Joe Silverman






















                    3












                    $begingroup$

                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$

















                      3












                      $begingroup$

                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$















                        3












                        3








                        3





                        $begingroup$

                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$



                        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.







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        answered May 9 at 21:44


























                        community wiki





                        Nate Eldredge






















                            3












                            $begingroup$

                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$

















                              3












                              $begingroup$

                              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.






                              share|cite|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$















                                3












                                3








                                3





                                $begingroup$

                                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.






                                share|cite|improve this answer











                                $endgroup$



                                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.







                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                answered May 9 at 21:52


























                                community wiki





                                Piyush Grover






















                                    3












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer











                                    $endgroup$

















                                      3












                                      $begingroup$

                                      Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer











                                      $endgroup$















                                        3












                                        3








                                        3





                                        $begingroup$

                                        Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer











                                        $endgroup$



                                        Finding an $ntimes n$ magic square with entries consecutive primes is not hard for $n>3$, compared to $n=3$.







                                        share|cite|improve this answer














                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer








                                        answered May 9 at 22:31


























                                        community wiki





                                        Gerry Myerson






















                                            3












                                            $begingroup$

                                            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)






                                            share|cite|improve this answer











                                            $endgroup$

















                                              3












                                              $begingroup$

                                              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)






                                              share|cite|improve this answer











                                              $endgroup$















                                                3












                                                3








                                                3





                                                $begingroup$

                                                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)






                                                share|cite|improve this answer











                                                $endgroup$



                                                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)







                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                                answered May 10 at 5:59


























                                                community wiki





                                                Martin Seysen




























                                                    draft saved

                                                    draft discarded
















































                                                    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.




                                                    draft saved


                                                    draft discarded














                                                    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





















































                                                    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







                                                    Popular posts from this blog

                                                    Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                                                    Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                                                    Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?