Counterexamples to the Gaussian moments conjecture
Explicit low-degree polynomials disproving a 2017 conjecture that had been proposed as a route to proving the Jacobian conjecture, found days after that conjecture was itself disproved.
- Lab
- Independent
- Model
- GPT-5.6 Sol Pro + Claude Fable 5
- Field
- Mathematics
- Date
- 2026-07-20
- Human collaborators
- Christopher D. Long
- Problem posed
- 2017 · open 9 yrs
What was found
Derksen, van den Essen and Zhao proposed the Gaussian moments conjecture and showed that the Jacobian conjecture would follow from it. Long reports that a cubic counterexample in four variables was produced by GPT-5.6 Sol Pro with no human intervention after the initial prompt, which simply noted that the Jacobian conjecture had just been disproved and asked whether a small counterexample to GMC might therefore exist; Claude Fable 5 then found a quartic counterexample in three variables and supplied independent algebraic checks. Together these show is false for every .
Novelty check
The Gaussian moments conjecture is due to Derksen, van den Essen and Zhao (Israel J. Math., 2017), building on their earlier moment-vanishing and integral conjectures. No prior counterexample appears in the literature; the conjecture's interest was precisely that it implied the Jacobian conjecture, which was disproved on 2026-07-19. The two-variable case GMC(2) is explicitly left open by this paper.
Caveats and known objections
arXiv preprint, not peer-reviewed, single author. The constructions are explicit polynomials and checkable by computer algebra, which lowers the cost of verification, and vibemathed has since re-derived both counterexamples in exact arithmetic for the first ten moments, which confirms the objects but not the argument that the identity holds for every m. The result is a corollary of the Jacobian collapse rather than an independent line of attack: the prompt that produced it began by telling the model that the Jacobian conjecture had fallen.
Independent checks
vibemathed.com re-derivation: Rebuilt both counterexamples from the paper's stated polynomials and evaluated them in exact rational arithmetic against the Gaussian moment rules, independently of the paper's algebra: for to both give and exactly. That checks instances, not the all- argument. · link ↗
Also recorded at
vibemathedgaussian-moments-conjecture
Nothing mechanically. It is a parallel listing of the same result, carrying its own verification label rather than an independent check.
Disagree with these grades?
Bring a citation: a grade moves on evidence, not on argument.
Or on GitHub: submit a check challenge the grade send a correction or send a pull request
Flag this for triage
Signals order the review queue and nothing else. They are never published, and they never move a grade: that takes a citation.
History of this entry
- CheckedRecorded vibemathed's exact-arithmetic re-derivation of both counterexamples for the first ten moments. The all-m argument is unchecked, so no grade moved. source ↗
- CorrectedRecorded the vibemathed record for this result as a registration. No grade moved.
- AddedEntered the registry graded Author verified and AI-led.
Entries are never deleted. A grade that does not hold up is downgraded on the record, with the reason beside it.
Graded author verified for verification and ai-led for autonomy. What these mean.
Cite this entry
whataifound.org. (2026). Counterexamples to the Gaussian moments conjecture. whataifound.org: A Registry of AI Scientific and Mathematical Discoveries. https://whataifound.org/finding/2026-07-20-gaussian-moments
BibTeX
@misc{whataifound-independent-2026-moments,
title = {Counterexamples to the Gaussian moments conjecture},
author = {{whataifound.org}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {whataifound.org: A Registry of AI Scientific and Mathematical Discoveries},
note = {Result by Independent. Verification: Author verified. Autonomy: AI-led.},
url = {https://whataifound.org/finding/2026-07-20-gaussian-moments}
}