Status of the compact AR problem? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-18T22:36:23Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/75896 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75896/status-of-the-compact-ar-problem Status of the compact AR problem? Sergey Melikhov 2011-09-20T00:02:46Z 2011-10-24T15:22:12Z <p>The so-called "compact AR Problem" reads: </p> <blockquote> <p>Is every compact convex set in a metrizable topological vector space an absolute retract?</p> </blockquote> <p>It is open according to the chapter by T. Banakh, R. Cauty and M. Zarichnyi in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XdXnQCV5K08C&amp;lpg=PA609&amp;vq=1264&amp;pg=PA609" rel="nofollow">"Open Problems in Topology II"</a> (2007) and according to a <a href="http://www.math.ac.vn/publications/acta/pdf/0903389.pdf" rel="nofollow">2009 paper</a>, which acknowledges discussions of its authors with Nguyen To Nhu.</p> <p>Yet according to Sehie Park's 2004 <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2433/25349" rel="nofollow">survey</a> and another <a href="http://www.m-hikari.com/imf-password2009/17-20-2009/arandjelovicIMF17-20-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">2009 paper</a> it has been resolved affirmatively in a 8-page paper by Park published in some conference proceedings in 2004. (If you happen to solve <a href="http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~nnguyen/20paper.ps" rel="nofollow">"one of the most outstanding open problems in infinite dimensional topology"</a>, apparently you may have an urge to ignore top international journals and submit it to Antarctica Journal of Mathematics - especially if you happen to live in Antarctica.)</p> <p>Given that Cauty and Nhu have been long active in the area and have obtained substantial results related to the problem, it would be strange if they missed a correct solution. But it is also strange that they didn't mention Park's paper (whatever they think of it). </p> <blockquote> <p>So what is going on here?</p> </blockquote> <p>(I must admit that so far I have mostly checked out just those sources that are freely accessible on the internet, but given that some confusion already exists in at least one of the two 2009 papers, I thought that even if I'm missing a trivial solution such as MathSciNet it is perhaps already legitimate to ask this question here, so as to make that trivial solution more widely known.)</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75896/status-of-the-compact-ar-problem/75944#75944 Answer by Matthew Daws for Status of the compact AR problem? Matthew Daws 2011-09-20T13:10:50Z 2011-09-26T14:09:30Z <p>So if I understand right, you haven't checked MathSciNet? Well, it's not much use:</p> <ul> <li>Park's paper is <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2144066" rel="nofollow">http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2144066</a> but there is no review.</li> <li>Park's survey paper is <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2188170" rel="nofollow">http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2188170</a> but there is only a "summary".</li> <li>Those are the only things you are lead to by citations.</li> </ul> <p>(Community Wiki so others can edit if they wish; and this is hardly an answer worthy of gain rep for.)</p> <p><strong>Edit</strong> (Sergey Melikhov): As I finally got the chance to get to my office and browse Mathscinet, I <em>am</em> led to something interesting by citations. The 2004 paper of Park, which has no review, is cited in the <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2298736" rel="nofollow">review</a> of his another paper [Remarks on recent results in analytical fixed point theory. Nonlinear analysis and convex analysis, 517–525, Yokohama Publ., Yokohama, 2007], which says:</p> <blockquote> <p>Summary: "We show that some fixed point theorems and related results in our previous works [a long list of Park's papers including the 2004 paper] need additional requirements for their validities. Some of the new correct results appear in [S. Park, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 7 (2006), no. 1, 1-17]."</p> </blockquote> <p>The <a href="http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2218885" rel="nofollow">review</a> of the latter paper doesn't explicitly mention the compact AR problem, but it will probably take me a while to get the 2006 and 2007 papers.</p>