HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
plby
lean-proofs
Lean2026–2026
plby / lean-proofs

lean-proofs

Some Lean proofs

3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
47GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Some Lean proofs

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by hour3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2026-01-10 09:40:24 UTC to 2026-01-10 19:00:21 UTC.

0122026-01-10 09:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 10:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsJan 10, 09:002026-01-10 10:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 11:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 12:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 13:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 14:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJan 10, 14:002026-01-10 15:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 16:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 17:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 18:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-10 19:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-10 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 10, 19:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 10, 09:002026-01-10 09:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 10:00:00 UTC202
Jan 10, 10:002026-01-10 10:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 11:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 11:002026-01-10 11:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 12:002026-01-10 12:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 13:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 13:002026-01-10 13:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 14:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 14:002026-01-10 14:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 15:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 15:002026-01-10 15:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 16:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 16:002026-01-10 16:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 17:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 17:002026-01-10 17:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 18:002026-01-10 18:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 19:00:00 UTC000
Jan 10, 19:002026-01-10 19:00:00 UTC2026-01-10 20:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
It may help to look at this example concretely: The natural-language statement of the problem is (from https://www.erdosproblems.com/728): > Let C>0 and ϵ>0 be sufficiently small. Are there infinitely many integers a,b,n with a≥ϵn and b≥ϵn such that a!b!∣n!(a+b−n)! and a+b>n+Clogn? The Lean-language statement of the problem (which can be done either by hand or by AI) is (from https://github.com/plby/lean-proofs/blob/f44d8c0e433ab285541...): ∀ᶠ ε : ℝ in [>] 0, ∀ C > (0 : ℝ), ∀ C' > C, ∃ a b n : ℕ, 0 < n ∧ ε * n < a ∧ ε * n < b ∧ a ! * b ! ∣ n ! * (a + b - n)! ∧ a + b > n + C * log n ∧ a + b < n + C' * log n Yes on the one hand, one needs to know enough about Lean to be sure that this formulation matches what we intend, and isn't stating something trivial. But on the other hand, thi
Read the rest
s is not as hard as finding an error on some obscure line of a long proof. (There's also an older formulation at https://github.com/google-deepmind/formal-conjectures/blob/f... but the new one is more in the spirit of what was intended: see the discussion starting at https://www.erdosproblems.com/forum/thread/728#post-2196 which gives a clear picture, as of course does Tao's thread in the OP that summarizes this discussion.)
In “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”
Digging through the PDFs on Google Drive, this seems to be (one of) the generated proofs. I may be misunderstanding something, but 1400 lines of AI-generated code seems a very good place for some mistake in the translation to sneak in https://github.com/plby/lean-proofs/blob/main/src/v4.24.0/Er... Though I suppose if the problem statement in Lean is human-generated and there are no ways to "cheat" in a Lean proof, the proof could be trusted without understanding it
In “Erdos problem #728 was solved more or less autonomously by AI”

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.