VibeMathedMath problems solved with AI

Separation Between the Ordinary and Strong Kreiss Constants

Question 6.1 of Chalmoukis, Tsikalas and Yakubovich asks how far the strong Kreiss constant of a matrix can exceed its ordinary Kreiss constant. Answered: for every K>1K > 1 there are matrices whose Cayley transforms satisfy K(Ch(An,h))KK(C_h(A_{n,h})) \le K while Ks(Ch(An,h))12CnαKK_s(C_h(A_{n,h})) \ge \tfrac{1}{2}Cn^{\alpha_K} with αK=(K1)/(C+K1)\alpha_K = (K-1)/(C+K-1). Since the Kreiss matrix theorem gives Ks(T)P(T)edK(T)K_s(T) \le P(T) \le edK(T) in dimension dd, the exponent α<1\alpha < 1 is optimal up to an arbitrarily small power loss.

Result
Proved
Status
Resolved
AI contribution
AI-assisted
Method
Construction
Field
Operator theory
Posed by
Nikolaos Chalmoukis, Georgios Tsikalas and Dmitry Yakubovich
Year posed
2025
Years open
1y
Solved
2026-08-19
Model
ChatGPT 5.6 Pro
Vendor
OpenAI
Collaborators
Emiel Lorist, Martin Meyries, Mark Veraar
Verification
Unreviewed
Publication
Preprint
Significance
12 / 100
Disclosed cost
Wikipedia
No dedicated article

What the AI did

The same disclosure as the inverse generator entry, since both fall to one paper: ChatGPT 5.6 Pro explored Schauder basis counterexamples, assisted the adaptation of Ansorena's work that produces the explicit basis in Proposition 2.1, and helped optimize the explicit constants. Note the boundary honestly - the disclosure names Proposition 2.1 and Theorem 1.1, not Theorem 1.4. Proposition 2.1 is the finite-dimensional construction every result in the paper is deduced from, including this one, so the model is in the loop for the machinery rather than for this theorem's derivation.

Verification

Checked by this site on 22 August 2026 against the v2 PDF (arXiv:2608.06272v2, 19 Aug): the paper states "We furthermore note that Theorem 1.4(i) solves [6, Question 6.1]" and gives the explicit constants quoted in the statement, and reference [6] is Chalmoukis, Tsikalas and Yakubovich, arXiv:2512.10025. The mathematics of Theorem 1.4 was not checked here, though a curator numerical check of Proposition 2.1 - the construction it is deduced from - was carried out for the sibling entry and confirmed its bounds up to n = 256.

Sources

Related entries

Changelog1 change

Discussion