Not evaluated
Erdős problem #326: full solution with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle, Codex, GPT-5.5)
The gist
According to the “AI contributions to Erdős problems” wiki, Aron Bhalla reportedly proposed, with Aristotle, Codex and GPT-5.5, a solution to Erdős problem 326, announced May 20 to June 14, 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-326-aristotle-codex-gpt-5-5-1d-r1
@misc{discoveria-erdos-326-aristotle-codex-gpt-5-5-1d-r1,
author = {{DiscoverIA}},
title = {Erdős problem #326: full solution with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle, Codex, GPT-5.5)},
howpublished = {DiscoverIA registry, entry erdos-326-aristotle-codex-gpt-5-5-1d},
note = {Status “Not evaluated”, snapshot 1, recorded on October 12, 2026. New result},
year = {2026},
url = {https://discoveria.ai/entry/erdos-326-aristotle-codex-gpt-5-5-1d#releve-1},
urldate = {2026-10-12}
}Dated link opens this snapshot in the history
To understand ≈ 20 s reading time, estimated
What it changes
Problem 326 belongs to number theory and concerns additive bases. If this solution held, it would settle the problem in full. The wiki points to a Lean proof (a language in which a computer checks every step of a proof), which a computer could check if a third party verified it.
What remains unclear
The wiki points to a Lean proof without naming a third-party verifier, and no independent verification has been found. It marks the entry 🟢 full resolution according to its legend, a wiki indicator and not a third-party verification.
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(d), “AI collaborating with humans” (significant human involvement). Humans named by the wiki: Aron Bhalla; AI systems: Aristotle, Codex, GPT-5.5. Dates given by the wiki: “20 May-14 Jun, 2026”. Exact text: “Full solution (Lean)”; green flag (“full resolution”, according to the wiki's legend). The wiki flags a Lean proof without naming a third-party checker. Literature cited by the wiki: none. 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/326. 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
- Aron Bhalla with Aristotle, Codex, GPT-5.5, according to the AI-Erdős wiki
announced on May 20, 2026 - Nature
- new result
- Field
- Mathematics (Erdős problem #326 (number theory ; additive basis))
- Wiki category
- AI collaborating with humans (IA en collaboration avec des humains ; implication humaine significative)
- Wiki verdict
- « Full solution (Lean) » : 🟢 résolution complète (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 108 of 521, by problem number
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #314: formalisation by Aristotle (proof: “Lim and Steinerberger (2024)”)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #315: formalisation by Aristotle (proof: Kamio (2025))
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #325: partial results found in the literature according to the wiki (ChatGPT Deep research)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #326: full solution with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle, Codex, GPT-5.5)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #327: candidate partial result according to the wiki (GPT-5.5, Rethlas)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #328: formalisation by AxiomProver (proof: Nešetřil and Rödl (1985))
- Contested : Erdős problem #330: partial results found in the literature with inaccuracies noted by the wiki, literature proof not found (ChatGPT Deep research, Claude, Gemini Deep Research)
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.