Not evaluated
Erdős problem #488: new solution to a variant problem with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle)
The gist
According to the teorth/erdosproblems wiki on AI and Erdős problems, Aristotle reportedly obtained a new solution to a variant of Erdős problem #488 (announced on November 27, 2025).
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-488-aristotle-1c-r1
@misc{discoveria-erdos-488-aristotle-1c-r1,
author = {{DiscoverIA}},
title = {Erdős problem #488: new solution to a variant problem with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle)},
howpublished = {DiscoverIA registry, entry erdos-488-aristotle-1c},
note = {Status “Not evaluated”, snapshot 1, recorded on October 12, 2026. New result},
year = {2026},
url = {https://discoveria.ai/entry/erdos-488-aristotle-1c#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 #488 belongs to number theory (the study of the properties of integers). If this solution held, it would be a solution to a variant of this problem; the wiki marks the entry as partial progress and cites Cambie (2025) as prior literature.
What remains unclear
The wiki points to a Lean proof (a language in which a computer checks every step of a proof) without naming a third-party verifier, and no independent verification is on record. The sources read do not say how the variant differs from problem #488.
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(c), “AI building on literature” (literature known beforehand and not rediscovered afterwards; no significant human involvement). Humans named by the wiki: none; AI system: Aristotle. Date given by the wiki: November 27, 2025. Exact text: “New solution to variant problem (Lean)”; yellow flag (“partial progress”, according to the wiki's legend). The wiki flags a Lean proof without naming a third-party checker. Prior literature cited by the wiki: Cambie (2025). 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, but a finite counterexample would disprove it if it is false (informal_status=falsifiable); 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/488. 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
- Aristotle, according to the AI-Erdős wiki
announced on Nov 27, 2025 - Nature
- new result
- Field
- Mathematics (Erdős problem #488 (number theory))
- Wiki category
- AI building on literature (IA s'appuyant sur une littérature connue avant et non redécouverte après ; implication humaine non significative)
- Wiki verdict
- « New solution to variant problem (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 193 of 521, by problem number
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #481: full solution found in the literature according to the wiki (GPT)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #484: formalisation by Aristotle (proof: “Erdős, Sárközy, and Sós (1989)”)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #487: formalisation by Aristotle (proof: Kleitman (1971))
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #488: new solution to a variant problem with a Lean proof according to the wiki (Aristotle)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #488: partial result according to the wiki (Aristotle, GPT-5.4)
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #490: formalisation by Aristotle, GPT-5.5 Pro (proof: Szemerédi (1976))
- Not evaluated : Erdős problem #493: new or existing proof, in Lean, according to the wiki (Aristotle, GPT, Seed Prover)
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.