Very interesting, on many levels: first, the raw additional compute / search harness is worth reading about; huge numbers of Lean 4 theorems, thousands of vCPUs available for spreading out search, embedding databases of proofs, all very interesting.<p>Second, the proofs -- I understand the Lean 4 proofs to be refereed by Fable, and generated by Chat 5.6 Sol. Unlike the leaked proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture last week which had a very nicely readable nearly humanlike writeup, the proof summaries (from Fable) read like Claude tends to read to me these days - real difficulty with the theory of mind of the reader, they are filled with technical phrases, acknowledgment of hard bits and oblique reference to solutions. In short, they suck. I didn't see the word load-bearing, but I bet it's there.<p>That said, a Lean 4 proof is a pretty compelling output artifact. I find it interesting that it's an additional type of effort to turn these into human readable / appreciable / beautiful / non-shitty proofs.<p>To those who say who cares -- indeed. But. One of the major reasons things like the Erdos problems are valuable is that they can at times spur new techniques and concepts. The best of these concepts are applied elsewhere, advancing the frontier. While we gain a lot from solving these problems, we'll gain even more from that next step of distillation / explanation into something humans and computers can grok together. I'd hope that with so many tentatively marked 'solved' we will see some new techniques / ontology / concepts. If not, still pretty amazing.
This is great feedback (thank you for taking the time), & you especially bring up a fair point on the writeups needing to be more human readable. I'll work on that
This reminds me of certain simple but addictive video games: "What are these virtual coins good for?" "You can buy better equipment" "Why do you need this equipment?" "To get more virtual coins of course!"
My mouth is agape at the fact that this project
is basically what I have been working on non-stop
for the last three weeks and just yesterday gotten
to the point of evaluating; hats off... I only have
one novel proof (non-Erdos) and 13 first-time
formalizations thus far.<p>I still like doing maths by pen and paper, but
this is fun too.
When you say "working on" what is your actual contribution? Like, what should I imagine you do? For most people who tell AIs what to do and are proud of it, it's sadly mostly sitting around and staring at "thinking" output, and steering a bit, so I'm curious what the work looks like.
Thank you for the kind words! I agree, it's exciting that we can now build advanced AI systems for solving novel math (but i still love pen & paper too)
[dead]
As the tools for AI assisted proof become better and mathematicians make it mainstream (could take a while), we're going to be seing some pretty crazy shit. I can't think of a discipline that has more impact on our current toolchains
I was studying Erdos problems by only taking ChatGPT 5.5 outputs and just asking it to keep on attempting to solve it by asking it to go further. I haven't started doing this with chatgpt 5.6 I have some partial results here <a href="https://chatgpt.com/g/g-p-69f03400f420819192418b18ca90ffee-dabook/project" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/g/g-p-69f03400f420819192418b18ca90ffee-d...</a><p>What was really interesting is that during the process it was able to find lemmas or theorems that might be related or relevant to be published.<p>While I was doing that I was also trying to use Aristotle to do the Lean formalization and I have a WIP system to do that at <a href="https://github.com/aconsapart/thesisus/" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/aconsapart/thesisus/</a>
This looks interesting. I am not really familiar with lean, etc... Could I use this to formalize/verify a proof from a paper?
I haven't played around with Aristotle at all, thanks for bringing it up & (also your codebase, thesisus, is very solid!)
Who is funding this? Sounds like a fun experiment but that’s a huge amount of compute if I understand correctly.
According to a quick google search:<p>"He is currently CTO at Xinobi AI, a Japan-based startup developing personal AI agents."
Post-money people with side interests are what built the current western civilization.
Very cool! It seems you've got a great setup. An addition that would be very convincing is going the extra mile and making a comparator setup for your Lean proofs. (<a href="https://github.com/leanprover/comparator" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/leanprover/comparator</a>) This ensures that the AI is not, in any way, modifiying the Lean context in ways that could lead to unsoundness.
What kind of harness does the exploration? Where did the corpus of Lean proofs come from? Is the code backing Ton 618 open source?
To the author: for the absolute Galois of Q_p problem, the link is wrong.
I'm not sure how to interpret this part: "each running its own GPT-5.6 instance".<p>GPT-5.6 is a closed source model and this seems to be a personal project and not something done by OpenAI.
I've been wanting to experiment with using AI to prove math theorems, but compute is obviously a massive limiting factor here. Are there any plans to open source this?
Have people tried these on Millenium problems.. letting it run all night? You never know.
yeah, im currently running the system on navier-stokes (making real progress).<p>Unfortunately P vs NP, on the other hand, is going to have to wait for GPT 7
solve p=np make no mistakes
I didn't know people could just have GPT running on their own hardware. How does one...do that? Do you have a special relationship with OpenAI and they lock down your servers or something?
surely it's not copy pasting answers from some obscure polish forum right bros
[flagged]
Isn't this sucking the fun out of math? It's not like we're going to get any tangible benefit out of them, so why not let mathematicians keep their jobs?
The thing about math is we don't usually know what is pure fancy and what is civilization altering until far after the discovery. Once in a while it's a real targeted crack at something practical but most often it's collecting things which seem trial until you use them together and suddenly you have computers running LLMs.<p>If it were really just about funding people who like math to have fun then it's easy to do forever: just don't have them look at the results and keep paying.
It's probably more akin to changing where the fun is in maths.
Isn't the pursuit of knowledge alone good enough?
That’s the problem, the coupling of work with the right to survive
The job of a mathematician is to study mathematics, not to create proofs.<p>An automatic proof solver doesn't make mathematicians obsolete any more than the excel sheet made accountants obsolete.
or get those bright minds out of academia daycare and back to more actionable needs such as steering agents
This will keep happening until we stop people from doing it.