Talk:Connes embedding problem

CorenSearchBot is indeed in error. Henry Delforn (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? This appears to be a close copy of, unless I'm missing something. &mdash; The   Earwig   @  15:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i think the bot missed the context in which the wording is used. The reference cited by the bot appears to be an advertisement or flyer for a colloquium, the "non-free" terminology (as mentioned in the tag) is with regards to attending the colloquium not the paper itself which is just a flyer. Doing a general search for key words in the previous version of the article turns up several other exact advertisements. Regardless, article copy was edited substantially to remove any close paraphrasing. Henry Delforn (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

 * In noncommutative mathematics, the Connes embedding problem or conjecture asks whether every finite von Neumann algebra (separable II1 factor) can be embedded into the ultrapower of the hyperfinite II1 factor (countably generated finite factors)[...]

I rewrote the sentence to read as above. Formerly it said "any finite von Neumann algebra". In this context, "any" is ambiguous. Is it the case that "any finite von Neumann algebra" can be so embedded? If so, then "every" is true. But "asks whether any finite von Neumann algebra" can be so embedded could be construed as: "asks whether there is any finite von Neumann algebra" that can be so embedded. If there is one, then the answer is "yes", even if "every" is not true. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is proven to be false as MIP*=RE
I have no idea about this topic, but as stated on https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512: (5) The Connes embedding conjecture, a central conjecture from the theory of operator algebras dating back to the 1970s, is false.

The paper proving this is https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383.

I guess you need to adjust this article.

Coming form this article BTW (German): https://www.spektrum.de/news/sind-quantencomputer-wirklich-besser-als-klassische-computer/1572490

--rugk (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses. This is an unpublished pre-print from two weeks ago. We wait for peer-review before doing any deep changes. The pre-print is from established experts in the field, so the claimed proof is noteworthy, but note that the lead of the article already mentions it. Tercer (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)