trailThe 2026 Jacobian conjecture counterexample introduces no essentially new techniques beyond Vitushkin's 1999 work
Vitushkin lineage· for
Vitushkin's 1999 paper constructs a non-injective rational self-map of C² with constant nonzero Jacobian
atomic
The 2026 Jacobian conjecture counterexample closely parallels Vitushkin's 1999 rational construction lifted to three dimensions
atomic
The polynomial step· against
Vitushkin's construction method faces an obstruction in two dimensions that the three-dimensional polynomial counterexample circumvents
atomic
assumed
A counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture in three variables was announced in July 2026 and independently verified
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The 2026 Jacobian conjecture counterexample introduces no essentially new techniques beyond Vitushkin's 1999 work
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →
Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.