A strange shape may fool two classic tests
- What it is
- A computer-assisted paper claims a noncircular flat shape can pass tests once thought to force a disk.
- Who did it
- Matthew J. Colbrook and George Stepaniants
- What it could mean
- Can measurements fool you about a shape? This claimed noncircular example would pass tests once thought to single out a disk—exposing a blind spot in what those measurements can tell us.
See the check plan
Evidence & validation
From announcement to evidence
Discovery recorded. State of Proof has not yet examined this claim.
Read the original work
A computer-assisted counterexample to the planar Pompeiu and Schiffer conjectures ↗See the proposed checks
Reproduce the listed polynomial, interval for (k), linearisation positivity, tail bounds, and contraction certificate; highest risk is the numerical-to-exact bridge that establishes a genuine analytic domain and boundary conditions.
No proof docket yet
A docket is the public record of checks and open questions. This paper does not have one yet; the check plan above describes work still to do.
Explore existing proof dockets →
- What it claims
- Constructs a bounded simply connected noncircular planar domain yielding counterexamples to the stated Schiffer and Pompeiu formulations through a cubic operator equation and rigorous tail control.
- Why this could matter
- A strange shape may fool two classic tests Some mathematical tests were thought to force a flat shape to be a disk. This paper constructs a noncircular region that appears to pass the same boundary and integral tests, changing what measurements can reveal about shape.
- If it holds up
- Enabling: inverse-problem and wave researchers gain a concrete warning that these measurements do not uniquely identify circular geometry, plus an exact benchmark for future methods.
- If it does not
- The conjectures survive, and the failed numerical-to-exact step identifies where an approximate shape stopped being a genuine mathematical counterexample.
- Impact horizon
- Enabling · Inverse problems · Wave equations · Shape reconstruction
- Version
- submitted 2026-08-03 01:28:36 UTC.
- Why we tracked it
- a narrowly stated counterexample with an explicit numerical interval and an a-posteriori contraction route; no docket created.
- Highest-risk dependency
- the numerical-to-exact bridge that establishes a genuine analytic domain and boundary conditions.
- Available artifacts
- Primary manuscript and TeX source available; the arXiv record did not list a formal/code artifact; no current social signal used.
- Current boundary
- Intake record only; examination not started.