https://arxiv.org/html/2502.17655
Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗
Stewards’ notes · 1
- Any counterexample to the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture must be a grainy set.
Supports. The authors who settled the three-dimensional conjecture state the graininess result as established and attribute it to Guth's paper. They do not reprove it in this passage, but their Section 7 and Appendix A develop a grains decomposition for tubes in three dimensions, so the paper's own machinery bears out that graininess is a usable structural property. This is the most authoritative statement of the claim in the literature. Sep 15, 2026
Examinations
None recorded.
Text
Stored, not yet divided into passages.
In [ 9 ] , Guth proved that every (hypothetical) counter-example to the Kakeya conjecture in ℝ 3 \mathbb{R}^{3} must be grainy. Stickiness, however, appeared to be more challenging.
Supports. The authors who settled the three-dimensional conjecture state the graininess result as established and attribute it to Guth's paper. They do not reprove it in this passage, but their Section 7 and Appendix A develop a grains decomposition for tubes in three dimensions, so the paper's own machinery bears out that graininess is a usable structural property. This is the most authoritative statement of the claim in the literature.
Lineage across 1 claim
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/html/2502.17655
- Archived copy
- None found
- Stored text
- 610,829 characters, retrieved Sep 15, 2026 · not yet divided
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- Not yet checked
- Facts checked
- Not yet
History 2
- Sep 15, 2026ReadingSteward of “Any counterexample to the three-dimensional Kak…” · supports, read whole
- Sep 15, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored