Not evaluated
Erdős problem #176: partial result with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro)
The gist
The “AI contributions to Erdős problems” wiki lists a partial result by Codex and GPT-5.5 Pro on Erdős problem #176, dated June 21, 2026.
DiscoverIA status on October 12, 2026: not evaluated, meaning no third-party evaluation found.
AI draft, not reviewedWhat has not been reviewed?
Text written by an AI (DiscoverIA pipeline), on . The status and its sources come from the registry; only the explanatory text has not been reviewed. A reported error is corrected, then the text is reviewed.
Cite this entry
A single status snapshot since Oct 12, 2026: a citation always points to a dated snapshot.
Cite snapshot 1, Oct 12, 2026
APA citation with the dated link
BibTeX @misc, key discoveria-erdos-176-codex-gpt-5-5-pro-1b-r1
@misc{discoveria-erdos-176-codex-gpt-5-5-pro-1b-r1,
author = {{DiscoverIA}},
title = {Erdős problem #176: partial result with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro)},
howpublished = {DiscoverIA registry, entry erdos-176-codex-gpt-5-5-pro-1b},
note = {Status “Not evaluated”, snapshot 1, recorded on October 12, 2026. New result},
year = {2026},
url = {https://discoveria.ai/entry/erdos-176-codex-gpt-5-5-pro-1b#releve-1},
urldate = {2026-10-12}
}Dated link opens this snapshot in the history
To understand ≈ 30 s reading time, estimated
What it changes
If this partial result held, it would address only part of problem #176, filed under additive combinatorics, arithmetic progressions (sequences in which the same number is always added to get from one term to the next) and discrepancy. On October 12, 2026, erdosproblems.com still showed the problem as open.
What remains unclear
The wiki indicates a proof in Lean (a language in which a computer checks every step of a proof) without naming a third-party checker. It files the entry under “AI alongside literature”: a comparable result was found afterwards in the literature. The sources read do not say what the partial result covers.
For experts
Sources, method, key facts, status history, report an error
Status
Not evaluated
Recorded on · github.com · wiki
Step 1 of 4 on the scale: not evaluated. Next step: under review.
- Announced
- Wiki frozen
- Recordednot evaluated
- nextTo follow
What this status means
Source reading : Source read word for word (level 3 of 3)
The result is declared neither right nor wrong.
To move to “Under review”: a public review under way. To “Peer reviewed”: a journal publication or a review by named experts.
Dated archive: status recorded on the wiki frozen on Jun 30, 2026
Sources
- Main sourcegithub.com · wikipage read word for word · consulted on Oct 12, 2026
- Reference listerdosproblems.comlink only, reading not recorded
- Corroborationterrytao.wordpress.compage read word for word · consulted on Oct 17, 2026 ·
We have created a github repository to coordinate this process
- Repositorygithub.com · CONTRIBUTING.mdpage read word for word · consulted on Oct 17, 2026 ·
this status is an unofficial crowdsourced classification of the problem
Method
Source: the “AI contributions to Erdős problems” wiki of the teorth/erdosproblems repository (a repository presented by Terence Tao in his blog post of August 31, 2025); frozen on June 30, 2026 (commit c8ad430, “freeze”) and read on October 12, 2026 in the git repository. Category 1(b), “AI alongside literature” (AI in parallel with the literature (a comparable result found afterwards); no significant human involvement). Humans named by the wiki: none; AI systems: Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro. Date given by the wiki: June 21, 2026. Exact text: “Partial result (Lean)”; yellow flag (“partial progress”, according to the wiki's legend). The wiki flags a Lean proof without naming a third-party checker. Comparable literature found afterwards: Hunter (2026), on June 21, 2026; similar according to the wiki: “Yes”. Status of the problem in the teorth/erdosproblems community database (data/problems.yaml, unofficial classification, snapshot of October 12, 2026 with no commit identified, current state, not that of June 2026): open (informal_status=open); no formalised solution known (formal_status=unformalized). This status concerns the problem, not this contribution. Problem page not read by DiscoverIA: https://www.erdosproblems.com/176. DiscoverIA status: not evaluated (only the wiki's classification exists). Recorded on October 12, 2026.
Limits
DiscoverIA has not checked this contribution itself. The claimant supplies a Lean proof; as of this date, DiscoverIA has found no independent verification of this proof or of the result.
Key facts
- Claimed by
- Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro, according to the AI-Erdős wiki
announced on Jun 21, 2026 - Nature
- new result
- Field
- Mathematics (Erdős problem #176 (additive combinatorics ; arithmetic progressions ; discrepancy))
- Wiki category
- AI alongside literature (IA parallèle à la littérature (comparable découverte après coup)
- Wiki verdict
- « Partial result (Lean) » : 🟡 progrès partiel (légende du wiki)
- Checked by
- no verifier identified
- Sources
- 4 : 3 read word for word, 1 link only
- This entry
- AI draft, not reviewed
Status history
Only one observation so far.
An observation is added; none is ever erased.
In the same set
AI contributions to Erdős problems (wiki by T. Tao, frozen on June 30, 2026) · entry 56 of 521, by problem number
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #165: formalisation by Trellis (proof: Hefty, Horn, King and Pfender (2025))
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #167: partial results found in the literature according to the wiki (GPT-5)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #176: candidate partial result with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #176: partial result with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Codex, GPT-5.5 Pro)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #178: formalisation by Aristotle (proof: Beck (1981))
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #188: partial results found in the literature according to the wiki (GPT-5)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #189: formalisation by Aristotle, Gemini 3 Pro (proof: Kovač (2023))
Report an error or suggest a source
Thank you, your message was sent.
Sending failed. Try again, or write to contact@discoveria.ai.
Is your result listed?What each status requires, correcting this entry, replying to it.