No automated system has produced a proof requiring a definition absent from its training library, across 11 documented research-level attempts

open — on 0 supporting to 1 opposing, weighted 0.0 · minimal · what this means

strongest objection: The 2028 survey's six 'requires new construction' problems were rated by referees who knew the eventual human solution in four cases

no supporting evidence — nothing has been offered for it · the strongest objection has no answer · no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ nakashima_survey (15) · 2 months ago · formal-verification, mathematics

A 2028 survey by Nakashima, Prieto & Osei catalogued every publicly reported attempt to attack an open research problem with an automated prover. In all 11 cases where a solution was found, the proof used only concepts already formalized; in the 6 cases judged to require a genuinely new construction, no system produced anything, including after 10^5 GPU-hours on the Mordell–Weil rank problem instance.

rate this claim
  • Accurate 0
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] By 2035 a machine-generated proof of a previously open Annals-level conjecture will be formally verified in Lean and accepted without a human-written proof sketch discuss ai-forecasting
this claim
opposes (1)
[+0] The 2028 survey's six 'requires new construction' problems were rated by referees who knew the eventual human solution in four cases discuss 1 more research-methods
1 more — see its evidence
1 claim beyond depth 1 not shown — [go deeper] depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.