Lean is a language for mathematical statements and proofs that a computer can verify. This page shows one statement file from OpenAI’s release, possible paper matches and independent reports. The code-like names below identify the definitions or theorems selected by the proof-verification settings.
Counterexample to Naimark's problem in ZFC
Theorem selected for verification:OAI.NaimarkZFC.main
Problem reported Reported as broken in the same way: its operator-algebra definitions are listed as holes, so a trivial replacement makes the checked statement vacuous. Alex Meiburg, Several of the comparator challenges in the OpenAI release are broken and hackable, 2026-10-08Source
The Lean statement
The lines of the Lean statement that state the theorem, then the definitions in the file that it uses.
theoremmain : ∃ (A : Type u) (_ : CStarAlgebra A), IsSimpleCStar A ∧ ¬ FiniteDimensional ℂ A ∧ (∃ τ : A →L[ℂ] ℂ, IsFaithfulTracialState τ) ∧ HasUniqueIrreducibleRepresentation.{u, v, w} A ∧ ∀ (H : Type v) [NormedAddCommGroup H] [InnerProductSpace ℂ H] [CompleteSpace H], ¬ IsIsomorphicToCompacts A H := bysorry
A Lean statement states the theorem and leaves its proof as sorry on purpose. OpenAI’s proof is in a separate solution module, and a program called Comparator checks that proof against this statement.
Definitions needed to read it
Local definitions the statement names, followed through the definitions they name in turn. The match is by name in the source text, so a name reached only through notation can be missed; the full file is below.
defIsFaithfulTracialState {A : Type u} [CStarAlgebra A] (f : A →L[ℂ] ℂ) : Prop := IsState f ∧ (∀ a b : A, f (a * b) = f (b * a)) ∧ ∀ a : A, a ≠ 0 → 0 < (f (star a * a)).re
defIsIrreducible {A : Type u} [CStarAlgebra A] {H : Type v} [NormedAddCommGroup H] [InnerProductSpace ℂ H] [CompleteSpace H] (π : A →⋆ₙₐ[ℂ] (H →L[ℂ] H)) : Prop := π ≠ 0 ∧ ∀ M : Submodule ℂ H, IsClosed (M : Set H) → (∀ a : A, ∀ x ∈ M, π a x ∈ M) → M = ⊥ ∨ M = ⊤
defUnitarilyEquivalent {A : Type u} [CStarAlgebra A] {H : Type v} [NormedAddCommGroup H] [InnerProductSpace ℂ H] [CompleteSpace H] {K : Type w} [NormedAddCommGroup K] [InnerProductSpace ℂ K] [CompleteSpace K] (π : A →⋆ₙₐ[ℂ] (H →L[ℂ] H)) (ρ : A →⋆ₙₐ[ℂ] (K →L[ℂ] K)) : Prop := ∃ U : H ≃ₗᵢ[ℂ] K, ∀ a : A, ∀ x : H, U (π a x) = ρ a (U x)
defIsIsomorphicToCompacts (A : Type u) [CStarAlgebra A] (H : Type v) [NormedAddCommGroup H] [InnerProductSpace ℂ H] [CompleteSpace H] : Prop := ∃ φ : A →⋆ₙₐ[ℂ] (H →L[ℂ] H), Function.Injective φ ∧ ∀ T : H →L[ℂ] H, (∃ a : A, φ a = T) ↔ IsCompactOperator T
Definitions taken from OpenAI’s library 7
Comparator compares only the name and type of each definition listed here. When a theorem is configured, its proof uses the definition in OpenAI’s solution library. Read that definition as well as the one in this file when comparing the statement with the paper.
Comparator checks the name and type of IsSimpleCStar; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of IsState; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of IsFaithfulTracialState; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of IsIrreducible; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of UnitarilyEquivalent; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of HasUniqueIrreducibleRepresentation; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Comparator checks the name and type of IsIsomorphicToCompacts; its definition is in OpenAI’s library, in the modules that OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial imports.
Possible paper match, with no recorded review
Atlas selected this possible match by comparing words in the Lean statement with every statement in the family. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.
Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: equivalent, isomorphic, unitarily, complex, space, dimensional, irreducible, representations and five more. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: infinite, hilbert and unital.
Theorem 1.1 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC
Theorem
There exists a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex C^*-algebra A with a faithful tracial state such that all its nonzero irreducible representations are unitarily equivalent. In particular, A is not isomorphic to K(H) for any complex Hilbert space H.
There exists a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex $C^*$-algebra
$A$ with a faithful tracial state such that all its nonzero irreducible
representations are unitarily equivalent. In particular, $A$ is not
isomorphic to $K(H)$ for any complex Hilbert space $H$.
Other possible paper matches, closest wording first
Theorem 4.1 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: finite, unique, dimensional, irreducible, representations, simple and four more. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unital.
Theorem 6.1 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: representations, simple, algebra and states.
Proposition 3.1 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: faithful, tracial, state and algebra. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unital.
Theorem 5.5 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: closed. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: property.
Proposition 3.4 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: tracial and algebra. Shared only with the release’s name for the Lean statement or OpenAI’s note on it: unital.
Corollary 5.7 of A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC. Words of the Lean statement, its names split into words, that also appear in the theorem: states.
How Atlas selects possible matches: it compares words in the Lean statement with every statement in the family. It also splits Lean names into words. The release’s label and note receive less weight; a main theorem wins a close match. If the Lean wording yields no clear match, Atlas uses the catalogue description. This selects passages to compare; it does not establish that they mean the same thing.
Reported Comparator runs
three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett’s openai-math-lean-tooling. Each group reports its own Comparator run for this statement file. Atlas has not repeated the runs.
For a configured theorem, Comparator tests whether OpenAI’s proof proves the exact Lean statement. Some files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Acceptance does not establish that the statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem.
Every Comparator challenge re-run on Linux with nanoda switched on, decided by a preregistered rule; every family’s challenge statements read against OpenAI’s headline, clause by clause. Decider: Comparator (leanprover/comparator d03acab1 = tag v4.34.0, built with the release’s toolchain v4.34.1), lean4export 076e8e57, landrun 811cfff5, nanoda_lib 3a240721 — on GitHub’s Linux runners (.github/workflows/openai-math-kernel.yml), one j…
AcceptedTheir term: “CERTIFIED”.
Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.
An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge. Its protocol describes a planned error-rate study; this import does not establish that the study has been completed.
AcceptedTheir term: “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.
Each challenge’s solution is built and checked by Comparator at the pinned release, on Lean leanprover/lean4:v4.34.1, recording the verdict, the check time and the peak memory; the run was still in progress at this snapshot (192 accepted, 224 pending).
AcceptedTheir term: “accepted”.
Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 400 s; peak memory 6.5 GiB).
If Comparator is run under this configuration and accepts, the solution proves the configured theorem using only the allowed axioms, and the Lean kernel accepts every step.
Definitions compared by name and type only (7): IsSimpleCStar, IsState, IsFaithfulTracialState, IsIrreducible, UnitarilyEquivalent, HasUniqueIrreducibleRepresentation, IsIsomorphicToCompacts. Their bodies come from OpenAI’s solution library.
Acceptance leaves open whether the Lean statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem, whether the paper’s other claims are correct, and whether the result is new. Those questions require comparing the definitions and statements, reviewing the paper’s arguments, and reading the earlier literature.
Do family 297’s Lean statements express the advertised result?
These assessments compare all the family’s Lean statements with the whole result OpenAI describes in its catalogue. They do not assess this statement alone. Each group uses its own published rules.
MathVet and cert-machine agree on how much of the advertised result the Lean statements express.
Finds the whole advertised result stated or impliedTheir term: “full”.
The challenge statements imply the headline claim after unpacking definitions or one routine step. Their record
Their note: main : ∃ (A : Type u) (_ : CStarAlgebra A), IsSimpleCStar A ∧ ¬ FiniteDimensional ℂ A ∧ (∃ τ, IsFaithfulTracialState τ) ∧ HasUniqueIrreducibleRepresentation A ∧ ∀ (H : Type v) [Hilbert], ¬ IsIsomorphicToCompacts A H (universe-polymorphic): a unital infinite-dimensional simple C*-algebra with a faithful tracial state all of whose irreducible representations (nonzero, no nontrivial closed invariant subspace) are unitarily equivalent, yet not isomorphic to the compact operators on any Hilbert space. Matches the summary (nonseparability is a consequence, not stated; the summary's 'alternative to Tanaka' framing is irrelevant to the statement).
Definitions the group asks readers to compare with the paper: Hand-written C*-algebra representation theory: IsSimpleCStar, IsFaithfulTracialState, IsIrreducible π := π ≠ 0 ∧ no nontrivial closed π-invariant subspace, UnitarilyEquivalent, IsIsomorphicToCompacts A H := ∃ injective φ : A →⋆ₙₐ[ℂ] (H →L H), range = compact operators; standard, quantified over Hilbert spaces in explicit universes.
OpenAI’s own note on what this Lean statement covers
“The formalization gives a counterexample in ZFC: a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex $C^*$-algebra with a faithful tracial state has that uniqueness property for irreducible representations but is not isomorphic to the compact operators on any Hilbert space. No additional set-theoretic assumption is used.”
An AI agent drafted an interpretation of that note, classifying this statement as “states a paper’s theorem as the paper does”. No human review of the draft is recorded.
Supporting material
The complete Lean statement file
57 lines, copied from release version fd4aeeb. A name defined in this file links to its line; pointing at the name shows its definition.
Declared in this fileOpenAI’s library at fd4aeebOther linked names open the current documentation for Mathlib, Lean’s mathematical library.
Links in the file: 8 to its own declarations, 42 to Mathlib’s documentation. 8 declared names also link to the same declaration in OpenAI’s library. OpenAI uses Mathlib version d13f23b. The linked documentation describes the current version, so names that have since changed may be missing there.
There exists a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex C^*-algebra A with a faithful tracial state such that all its nonzero irreducible representations are unitarily equivalent. In particular, A is not isomorphic to K(H) for any complex Hilbert space H.
There exists a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex $C^*$-algebra
$A$ with a faithful tracial state such that all its nonzero irreducible
representations are unitarily equivalent. In particular, $A$ is not
isomorphic to $K(H)$ for any complex Hilbert space $H$.
OpenAI’s Lean catalogue does not list this as a main result; the release’s Lean notes for family 297 link it.
Solution module
OAI.Analysis.Naimark.Tracial
Allowed axioms
propext, Quot.sound, Classical.choiceThe axioms this configuration allows a proof to use. A replay shows which of them a proof uses.
Imports
Mathlib
Imports from outside Mathlib
None
Local vocabulary
7 local vocabulary declarations
Lines of Lean, without comments or blank lines
34
Second proof-verification program (nanoda)
Off in OpenAI's configuration.
Statement comparison
A shareable summary of this page: the proposed paper match, what the Lean statement expresses, and which reviews are recorded.
Plectis Atlas
Counterexample to Naimark's problem in ZFC
Family 297: A ZFC counterexample to Naimark’s problem
Candidate pairing
Theorem
There exists a unital infinite-dimensional simple complex C^*-algebra A with a faithful tracial state such that all its nonzero irreducible representations are unitarily equivalent. In particular, A is not isomorphic to K(H) for any complex Hilbert space H.
A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC
TeX label na:main, build/sections/introduction.tex, line 10
The Lean statement says
theoremmain : ∃ (A : Type u) (_ : CStarAlgebra A), IsSimpleCStar A ∧ ¬ FiniteDimensional ℂ A ∧ (∃ τ : A →L[ℂ] ℂ, IsFaithfulTracialState τ) ∧ HasUniqueIrreducibleRepresentation.{u, v, w} A ∧ ∀ (H : Type v) [NormedAddCommGroup H] [InnerProductSpace ℂ H] [CompleteSpace H], ¬ IsIsomorphicToCompacts A H := bysorry
A Lean statement states the theorem and leaves its proof as sorry on purpose. OpenAI’s proof is in a separate solution module, and a program called Comparator checks that proof against this statement.
Comparator checks only the name and type of 7 definitions, among them IsSimpleCStar; their bodies come from the solution.
Recorded comparisons with the paper
Atlas records no contributed comparison of this statement with the paper.
Contributed Comparator run reports
Atlas records no contributed report of running Comparator for this statement file.
More about this statement
Commentary The same author adds that the Naimark challenge shows only a construction under standard axioms, leaving open that it relies on inaccessible cardinal axioms, whereas the point of the result was to avoid them. Alex Meiburg, Several of the comparator challenges in the OpenAI release are broken and hackable, 2026-10-09Source
Questions to resolve when comparing this statement with the paper
7 definition holes: Comparator compares these by name and type only, so a reader checks what each solution body means.