There's an entire paper claiming that many of these AI-generated Lean proofs are formulated incorrectly / mistranslated: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08144

▲

nsingh2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Note that paper is saying that the lean proof and the natural language proof do not necessarily coincide. It is not saying that the lean proof is wrong, just that the lean proof does not necessarily mean the natural language proof is correct.

▲

thejokeisonme an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A lean proof and a paper proof can diverge. But the statements have to correspond. I think that is what "mistranslated" means here.

	▲	tmvphil an hour ago \| parent [-]
		But the "mistranslation" is of the procedure that arrives at the final statement. The final statement, the thing that the lean code proves, itself has been well vetted by humans. So the lean proof correctly proves the NS blowup, it's just that the natural language paper has some mistakes and doesn't exactly follow the route the lean proof takes.

▲

macleginn an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The thing is, you often see people saying, ‘They have a Lean cert, so it has to be correct, even if I don't understand it.’

	▲	sebzim4500 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They are right? The lean proof is correct. It's the natural language proof that potentially isn't (or at least it isn't identically structured to the lean proof)

▲

sigmar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

that paper isn't saying that. why are there so many single digit karma accounts misrepresenting that paper?

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]