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













1












$begingroup$


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
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "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
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    3 hours ago















1












$begingroup$


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
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "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
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    3 hours ago













1












1








1


1



$begingroup$


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 6 hours ago


























community wiki





T. Amdeberhan








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
    $endgroup$
    – J.J. Green
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "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
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
    $endgroup$
    – J.J. Green
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "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
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
    $endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    3 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
(Slightly) related mathoverflow.net/questions/180846
$endgroup$
– J.J. Green
6 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
"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
5 hours ago





$begingroup$
"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
5 hours ago













$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@YCor Did you really mean to say "contractible"?
$endgroup$
– S. Carnahan
3 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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











$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    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











    $endgroup$




















      1












      $begingroup$

      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











      $endgroup$




















        1












        $begingroup$

        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











        $endgroup$













          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

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          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











          $endgroup$

















            2












            $begingroup$

            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











            $endgroup$















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              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 6 hours ago


























              community wiki





              Joe Silverman






















                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  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











                  $endgroup$

















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    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











                    $endgroup$















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      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 6 hours ago


























                      community wiki





                      Nate Eldredge






















                          1












                          $begingroup$

                          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











                          $endgroup$

















                            1












                            $begingroup$

                            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











                            $endgroup$















                              1












                              1








                              1





                              $begingroup$

                              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 5 hours ago


























                              community wiki





                              Piyush Grover






















                                  1












                                  $begingroup$

                                  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











                                  $endgroup$

















                                    1












                                    $begingroup$

                                    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











                                    $endgroup$















                                      1












                                      1








                                      1





                                      $begingroup$

                                      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 5 hours ago


























                                      community wiki





                                      Gerry Myerson




























                                          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

                                          Log på Navigationsmenu

                                          Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

                                          Detroit Tigers Spis treści Historia | Skład zespołu | Sukcesy | Członkowie Baseball Hall of Fame | Zastrzeżone numery | Przypisy | Menu nawigacyjneEncyclopedia of Detroit - Detroit TigersTigers Stadium, Detroit, MITigers Timeline 1900sDetroit Tigers Team History & EncyclopediaTigers Timeline 1910s1935 World Series1945 World Series1945 World Series1984 World SeriesComerica Park, Detroit, MI2006 World Series2012 World SeriesDetroit Tigers 40-Man RosterDetroit Tigers Coaching StaffTigers Hall of FamersTigers Retired Numberse