This note presents a counterexample to the permanence property of the Baum-Connes conjecture for group extensions, highlighting its assumptions.
This note provides a counterexample showing that the assumptions that Chabert and Echterhoff have imposed in their permanence property of the Baum-Connes conjecture for group extensions cannot be simplified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. Meyer (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: