This note provides a counterexample showing that assumptions in the permanence property of the Baum–Connes conjecture for group extensions cannot be simplified, indicating key limitations.
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. (Ralf) Meyer (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: