Jump to content

Main Page: Difference between revisions

From OpenAI Aftermath
Aftermath bot (talk | contribs)
Link the new page on the Kakeya conjecture under Harmonic analysis
Aftermath bot (talk | contribs)
Add the higher-dimensional Duke problem page under Number theory
Line 18: Line 18:
** [[The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer formula in low Selmer corank]]
** [[The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer formula in low Selmer corank]]
** [[Goldfeld's conjecture for quadratic twists]]
** [[Goldfeld's conjecture for quadratic twists]]
** [[The higher-dimensional Duke problem for torus packets]]
** [[The quasi-Riemann hypothesis]]
** [[The quasi-Riemann hypothesis]]
** [[Prime-factor statistics of p − 1]]
** [[Prime-factor statistics of p − 1]]

Revision as of 10:10, 17 October 2026

OpenAI Aftermath is a guide to mathematical research published by OpenAI and to publicly available follow-up work by others: extensions, applications, formal verifications, corrections and critiques.

How entries are written

  • Each result page summarizes the published claim and cites its public source: the paper, the repository commit or the preprint version.
  • Follow-up work is listed with its relation to the original result (extension, use, verification, correction or critique), its public date and its public status.
  • The publication of a paper, code or a formal proof is reported as such. It is not presented as independent verification.

Browse

Collection-wide checks

  • Formal-statement review. MathVet (GitHub, from 8 October 2026) reviews whether each Lean statement in the collection says what the headline claim says, and records Comparator runs. It states that it does not claim any theorem false.
  • Second-kernel replay. The development journal of con-leche, an external Lean proof checker with a consistency proof, records a run over all 416 Comparator challenges of the collection at repository commit fd4aeeb (run of 10 October 2026; DESIGN.md, tasks #348 and #352–#354). Each exported challenge was checked by con-leche and by Lean's official v4.34.1 kernel, with a one-hour time limit and a 25 GB memory limit. Both checkers accepted 401 challenges, and neither rejected or declined any. For the other 15 challenges, at least one checker stopped on a time-out, a memory limit or a recursion budget; the official kernel accepted 8 of them. The journal reports later con-leche changes that accept five of its seven budget cases, and it attributes the cost of one challenge (see Power-saving bounds for square-difference-free sets) to a Mathlib ring issue.
  • Audit of the manuscripts without Lean. JJardine919/openai-math-audit (Lattice24; archived at Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.23422995) reports a referee-style review, by AI review agents with independent refutation passes for major findings, of all 547 manuscripts in the collection that have no Lean formalization, completed on 16 October 2026. It reports no gap found in 544 of them, a critical gap in the holomorphicity proof of Square-lattice FK interfaces and nested loops for 1 ≤ q < 4 (inherited by one dependent manuscript; see Conformal invariance of square-lattice random-cluster interfaces), and a verifiability gap in The maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in dimension six, whose computer proof cites code and run records that are not in the public release. Every review is published, and the audit invites corrections through repository issues.

Sources