Carlson’s associated-prime depth conjecture

About 31 years old · traced to

Is the depth of every finite-group cohomology ring realized by the dimension of one of its associated primes?

References

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A 2026 paper claims to disprove Carlson’s conjecture with a finite-group counterexample, but independent confirmation is not yet recorded.

Carlson posed the question in 1995: whether the depth of every finite-group cohomology ring equals the minimum dimension among its associated primes. The claimed example has

depth⁡H∗(G;F‾2)=2<ωa(H∗(G;F‾2)),\operatorname{depth}H^{*}(G;\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{2})=2<\omega_{\mathrm{a}}\bigl(H^{*}(G;\overline{\mathbb{F}}_{2})\bigr),

with the latter quantity at least 33.

Known results

  • Green proved the equality for finite pp-groups attaining Duflot’s lower bound.
  • Carlson established the case dim⁡H∗(G,k)=2\dim H^{*}(G,k)=2.
  • Schäfer proved it when the Cohen–Macaulay defect is at most one.
  • Garaialde Ocaña, González-Sánchez, and Guerrero Sánchez proved it for an infinite family of finite pp-groups.

2026 counterexample claim

The paper reports an exhaustive calculation involving 7575 rank-two elementary abelian subgroups and six centralizer types; every relevant centralizer has depth at least 33, ruling out associated primes of quotient dimension 22. A related paper reports the same obstruction. The counterexample is currently an unverified claim rather than a settled resolution.

Current status (as of 2026): The general equality is claimed false by a finite-group example with depth 22 and associated-prime minimum at least 33; independent verification and the broader mathematical status remain open.

Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.