Plectis
This page

The papers

Eight problems, each with a short paper and the long reasoning record behind it.

For one problem’s papers beside its Lean proofs, choose it in the mathematics library.

The region where ani's degree-seven polynomial has modulus below 1: seven hatched petals inside the unit circle, one zero in each, with the zeros A and B in red, 1.95 apart, joined by red legs through the centre, and the dashed ellipse on which the distances to A and B add up to 2, passing through the centre. Beside it, the disc of radius 1.2 times 10 to the minus 12 about the centre: the arms of A and B meet at a passage just beyond the ellipse, now a dashed line; a small red circle C encloses the passage, and red rays leave it towards A and B. Reaching C from A and from B costs more than 2, so every path joining two zeros is longer than 2. 2 1.95 A B |z| < 4.4 × 10−12 0 < 2 > 2 C > 2 |z| < 1.2 × 10−12 ws dist(A, C) + dist(B, C) > 2 C: |w − 4i/5| ≤ 1/10
Erdős #1041 Where ani’s polynomial of degree seven has modulus below 1, computed from the coefficients in its short paper. The red zeros A and B are 1.95 apart, and only they share a piece of the region. The circle on the right shows the disc of radius 1.2 × 10−12 about the centre: there the arms of A and B meet through a passage just beyond the dashed ellipse on which the distances to A and B add up to 2. The whole passage lies in the small red circle, and reaching that circle from A and from B already costs more than 2, so every path between the two zeros is longer than 2. Lean checks the formal refutation.

8 papers, Short papers

One per problem: the original question, the results checked in Lean, the routes that failed, and the step that remains open. Start here.

Integer Linear Forms for a Factorial Reciprocal Series

Which integer coefficient vectors cancel initial weighted sums in factorial-denominator linear forms?

Read online PDF, 9 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

For S=∑n≥2(n!−1)−1, the paper classifies finitely supported integer vectors that cancel prescribed initial weighted sums in forms MS+k. An integral basis, one Diophantine equation and a finite gcd determine the possible moments M. At cancellation depth four, the least positive moment is 1380. Irrationality by these forms still requires a nonintegral form with q dividing M for every positive q.

Explains
the coefficient classification, finite moment gcd and depth-four construction; the long paper develops denominator exclusions, further constructions and method limits.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #68, which remains open.
Where to start
Introduction, An integral basis, Possible values of M, Nonintegrality of the remainder (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Reciprocal Sums and the Sylvester Recurrence

Which growth rates force irrational reciprocal sums, and which additional tail conditions force the Sylvester recurrence?

Read online PDF, 21 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

For strictly increasing positive integers with an²/an+1=1+3/n+o(n−3), the reciprocal sum is irrational. The argument extracts a cubic polynomial from an integer tail numerator, restricts its coefficients using a square in a cubic field, and excludes the remaining cases modulo seven. Under rationality and the quadratic growth limit, separate criteria using bounded numerator increases and weighted first crossings force the eventual Sylvester recurrence. The unrestricted Erdős–Graham question remains open.

Explains
cubic-rate irrationality, nonintegral regular-rate exclusion and sufficient tail criteria for the Sylvester recurrence; the unrestricted Erdős–Graham question remains open.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #243, which remains open.

Integral Relations among Totient Sections

What explicit basis and integral relations does the totient k-kernel have at every integer base, and why does that not decide Erdős #249?

Read online PDF, 15 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

For integers k≥2 and e≥1, the totient sections n↦φ(k^j n+r) with 0≤j≤e and 0≤r<kj have an explicit rational basis of dimension ke+1. Every section is an explicit integer multiple of a retained one, and these reductions generate all integral relations, with unique coefficients. The proof combines the local formula for Euler's totient with a nonsingular evaluation matrix obtained from the Chinese remainder theorem and Dirichlet's theorem. The basis theorem does not decide the irrationality of S=∑ φ(n)2−n.

Explains
the exact finite-level totient-kernel basis, independence proof and integral relations; the long paper develops denominator exclusions and other approaches to the binary series.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #249, which remains open.
Where to start
Introduction, Proof of the basis theorem, Integral relations (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Sparse Congruence-Preserving Perturbations of Dyadic Series

Which sparse congruence-preserving corrections can rationalise a dyadic series, and why does that not prove Erdős #251 irrational?

Read online PDF, 14 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

Sparse nonnegative integer corrections to a convergent dyadic series can attain every target in an interval. One set of upper Banach density zero supports the corrections, which satisfy any prescribed bound tending to infinity and eventually preserve each fixed coefficient and partial-sum congruence. For prime gaps with logarithmic corrections, block distributions remain close for lengths o(log log X), and cumulative positions remain asymptotic to n log n. Those positions need not be prime; the original irrationality question remains open.

Explains
the sparse correction construction and its prime-gap application; the long paper develops tail recurrences, local certificates and the limitations of other irrationality methods.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #251, which remains open.
Where to start
Introduction, Proof of Proposition 1.1, Application to prime gaps (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Irrationality criteria for Lambert subseries

Which supports are proved to give irrational Lambert subseries, and what still blocks the arbitrary infinite support that Erdős #257 asks about?

Read online PDF, 26 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The series ∑a∈A(ba−1)−1 is irrational for every integer b≥2 and infinite A contained in E∪V when E satisfies a finite-prime weighted summability condition and V has a summable positive divisor cover. The two classes are incomparable, and their union reaches supports in neither class. A common average over dyadic lengths produces one index with both displacements small. Arbitrary infinite supports at base two remain unresolved.

Explains
the weighted, divisor-cover and mixed support criteria with complete proofs and method limits; the long paper treats finite denominators, the achievement set and rational membership.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #257, which remains open.

Distinct running least common multiples

Why is the sum over distinct running LCMs of the 5-smooth integers irrational?

Read online PDF, 16 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A five-map argument proves irrationality of the reciprocal sum over distinct running least common multiples of the 5-smooth integers. The spacing of powers of five separates the tail images, so rationality would force a periodic jump sequence. Counting running LCMs with multiplicity gives a different number, whose irrationality remains open here.

Explains
the five-map proof for distinct running LCMs over {2,3,5}; the long paper treats general prime sets, the sum with multiplicity, kernels and residue criteria.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #269, which remains open.
Where to start
Two sums from running least common multiples, Recovering the prime-power jumps (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Paths in Polynomial Lemniscates: A Degree-Seven Counterexample and Radial Connections

How does the degree-seven counterexample obstruct short lemniscate connections, and why do trinomials admit them?

Read online PDF, 19 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The degree-seven polynomial constructed by ani has all its zeros in the open unit disc, but every connected subset of {|f|<1} containing two zeros has Hausdorff measure greater than two. The proof confines a slit preimage near a critical point and applies radial projection on its two inverse sheets. For monic trinomials with zeros in the open unit disc, the root equation instead keeps every root-to-origin segment inside the lemniscate.

Explains
ani's degree-seven counterexample and the trinomial connection theorem; the long paper develops critical-value estimates, other subclasses and subsidiary formal checks.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or the current status of Erdős #1041, including the later one-polynomial Formal Conjectures path-image Hausdorff-length check and its unreviewed historical curve-length correspondence; those distinctions belong to docs/claims.json in the mathematics repository.
Where to start
Introduction, A component with a narrow bottleneck, Trinomials and radial segments (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Hankel Determinants of Geometric Moments and Rational Lambert Values

What are the fixed-base Hankel asymptotics, and which rational bases give irrational values?

Read online PDF, 20 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

Positive geometric moments and a uniform partition-sum bound give the fixed-base asymptotic of Zudilin’s normalised Hankel determinants, including its constant and power correction. A separate calculation of degrees after cancellation in his 2004 forms extends the rational-base irrationality region. It includes every positive integral power of 31/4 and excludes 3/2.

Explains
the fixed-base Hankel asymptotic and rational-base irrationality theorem; the long paper develops exact orders, content and endpoint obstructions, and the remaining problem at 3/2.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #1049, which remains open.

1 paper, Expository papers

One result of a problem's short paper, explained for a reader new to the problem: worked examples first, then every step of the proof.

Why certain sums of 1/(2n−1) are irrational

Why do the fractions 1/(2n−1) over an infinite set of exponents n add up to an irrational number whenever 1/n, added up over the same exponents, is finite?

Read online PDF, 16 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

Erdős asked whether infinitely many of the fractions 1, 1/3, 1/7, 1/15, …, each of the form 1/(2n−1) and each used at most once, can ever add up to a fraction. The paper proves that the chosen fractions add up to an irrational number whenever 1/n, added up over the chosen exponents n, is finite; for the exponents 2, 4, 8, 16, … this makes 1/3+1/15+1/255+1/65535+… irrational. Sections 1 to 8 explain the proof with examples; Appendix A supplies supporting details and formal-proof correspondence. The finite reconstruction here is an ordinary proof; the linked Lean and Comparator receipts establish the formal theorem and its own proof. For an arbitrary infinite choice the question is still open.

Explains
an account of Theorem A.1 of the #257 short paper at base 2 for a reader new to the problem: a guided proof through worked examples, with supporting details, exercises and the formal-proof correspondence in appendices.
Not authority for
the validity of the Lean theorem it quotes, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #257, which remains open.

1 paper, Reading the problems together

Mathematics whose subject is several of the covered problems at once: what is common, what is not, and what the comparison leaves open.

Erdős 68 243 249 251 257 269 1041 1049

Reading Eight Erdős Problems Together

When do sparse integer digits fill intervals of values, when do they force irrationality or transcendence, and what does that show about the methods used across the Erdős problems?

Read online PDF, 38 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

One account of the mathematics developed across the programmes: an exact tail-capacity criterion under eventual congruences, its sharp factorial support-gap threshold, rational and irrational Lambert subsums across bases, and the limits of finite greedy tests and other irrationality methods. Full arguments, exact counterexamples, unsuccessful routes and attribution are retained together. The principal proofs are ordinary mathematics; cited Lean ingredients have their own stated scope. Historical novelty and independent expert review are not established.

Explains
the synthesis exposition and ordinary proofs across the covered problems: capacity and congruence constructions, Lambert subsums, rational-point counts, method limits and their research record.
Not authority for
a solution to any original Erdős target, historical novelty, independent expert review, or a full Lean proof of the analytic capacity criterion or Lambert-chain theorem.

4 papers, System papers

How the work is found, checked, published and shared. No mathematical claim about any problem lives here.

Writing a Good Mathematical Paper

How should an AI write a clear and mathematically faithful paper?

Read online PDF, 2 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A self-contained guide to explaining a mathematical argument: read nearby primary literature, state the exact hypotheses and conclusion, connect proof steps, introduce notation, attribute borrowed ideas, and inspect the rendered paper. The guide offers writing practice rather than mathematical certification.

Explains
the exposition methodology: a compact general guide for writing a mathematically faithful paper.
Not authority for
a mathematical result, independent review, or a measured improvement in writing.

Writing Mathematics from the Literature and Reviewed Revisions

How can reading nearby papers and reviewed revisions improve the explanation of a particular mathematical argument?

Read online PDF, 21 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A method for reading nearby mathematical prose, examining reviewed revisions, and retaining editorial lessons with their source, native decision and limit. The examples come from eight Erdős-problem papers. This documented practice has not been evaluated as an intervention in reader understanding.

Explains
the exposition methodology: reading primary mathematical prose, reviewing specific revisions, and retaining bounded editorial lessons.
Not authority for
the example mathematics, independent mathematical review, or a measured improvement in reader understanding.
Where to start
Learning to explain a particular argument, Two revisions and the mathematics that permits them, Review changes without changing their meaning, Keeping a useful practice small (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

A Repository-Based System for Research and Publication

How can questions, proofs, computations and failed approaches stay linked to reviewed claims and papers, and what can publication checks miss that mathematical review must catch?

Read online PDF, 25 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A correct Lean theorem can be misrepresented when its hypotheses disappear from a paper. This account follows a weighted-support criterion for Erdős Problem 257 through its mathematical argument, two registered formal supports and written explanation. It describes source inspection, publication checks, editorial revision and contributions in a repository covering eight problems. A historical test rejected nine false edits but missed a false completion claim; the paper distinguishes that record from the limited follow-up check. Source-byte agreement and repository adoption do not establish mathematical meaning, independent review or recognition by the community. The paper retains its mathematical antecedents and compares the recorded relations with blueprints and Prove2Me, without claiming comparative benefit.

Explains
the research architecture: problem-centred collections, the path from a proof to a public claim, and the contribution cycle.
Not authority for
the mathematics it uses as examples, which the problem papers own, or the novelty and significance of those results.
Where to start
Introduction, Worked case: reviewing an explanation, Publication and revision, Proof and publication checks, Limits (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

Plectis: What a Stranger Can Check

What may a stranger conclude from public evidence when the author chose both what to publish and what counts as a pass?

Read online PDF, 22 pages LaTeX source plectis on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The author publishes selected code, fixed inputs, expected results, decision rules, and run records while the larger system stays private. What can a stranger conclude after rerunning them? A matching result shows repeatability for one stated public case. It does not establish where the code came from, whether the expected answer is correct, whether the published selection resembles the private whole, or whether the private system works reliably. The contribution is a method for making one selected disagreement local, not a score.

Explains
the evidence boundary: what a passing public run does and does not establish.
Not authority for
the private system's internal state, which is not public, and the mathematical results it cites as evidence.
Where to start
The problem, One public test before the general design, Five distinctions, What stronger evidence would look like (our selection, not the paper's own advice)

8 papers, Long reasoning records

The complete record behind each short paper: every route tried and where each stopped, for a researcher or an agent to continue.

Factorial Linear Forms and Denominators: Detailed Proofs and Rationality Criteria

What growth, valuation, and finite-denominator facts are proved for ∑n≥2(n!−1)−1, and which tail inequalities remain?

Read online PDF, 51 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The record proves liminf (log LN)/(N3/2 log N) ≥ 2√2/3 for L_N=lcm(2!−1,…,N!−1), by comparing a terminal block of denominators with pairwise gcds rather than an external multiplicity theorem. Specialising a Louwsma–Martino valuation, it exhibits primes 139 and 2593 absent from all later reduced denominators. Coefficient constructions give integer forms MS+k; at fixed moment the remainder changes only by an integer. Rationality criteria use factorial digits and the next integer above a scaled partial sum; the digit argument also recovers the irrationality of e. Two exact calculations give q∤299999! and q≥239990>1012038. These exclusions do not prove irrationality.

Explains
the complete problem-specific reasoning surface for Erdős #68, including all registered result families and their boundaries.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #68, which remains open.

Reciprocal Sums and the Sylvester Recurrence: Further Results and Proofs

Which growth hypotheses make a reciprocal sum irrational, and which sufficient conditions force the Sylvester recurrence without settling Erdős #243?

Read online PDF, 61 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

Integer finite differences exclude nonintegral regular rates and reduce the cubic rate to a polynomial. A square condition in the cubic field and congruences modulo seven then prove irrationality. For rational reciprocal sums with an+1/an² tending to one, the record derives sufficient Sylvester-recurrence criteria from persistent divisors, bounded numerator increases and weighted crossings of new maxima. The arithmetic estimates needed to apply these criteria to every rational reciprocal sum remain open.

Explains
cubic and nonintegral regular-rate irrationality, integer-tail arithmetic and sufficient Sylvester-recurrence criteria, with their separate hypotheses and remaining estimates.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #243, which remains open.

The Binary Totient Series

What can the totient-kernel basis and residue tests say about Erdős #249, and which hypotheses still block irrationality?

Read online PDF, 163 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The dyadic totient sections through level e≥1 have an explicit rational basis of size 2e+1. Truncating a scaled tail difference produces an integer whose residue certifies nonintegrality when its distances from both endpoints of the residue interval exceed an explicit error bound. The record develops the resulting finite denominator exclusions, equivalent residue criteria, and sufficient exponential-sum estimates. Rational comparison sequences identify the limitations of particular size, parity, rank, and finite-prefix arguments. The short paper supplies the all-base basis theorem; here each conditional result carries the arithmetic hypothesis still needed to apply it. Those hypotheses are not established in the form required to prove irrationality of S=∑ φ(n)2−n.

Explains
a claim-bounded problem-specific reasoning surface for Erdős #249: selected checked premises, finite certificates, closed routes, surviving obligations, and their exact evidence bands.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #249, which remains open.

Prime-Gap Dyadic Series: Perturbations, Exact Criteria and Certificates

What exact tail criteria, sparse countermodels, and finite denominator bounds are proved for the prime-gap dyadic series, and why is irrationality still open?

Read online PDF, 47 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A convergent dyadic series with nonnegative integer coefficients can be made rational by sparse nonnegative corrections of upper Banach density zero, eventually bounded by any f(n)→∞, while preserving every fixed modulus and, for a logarithmic allowance, short-block empirical distributions. For prime gaps the cumulative positions remain asymptotic to n log n; no primality conclusion is asserted. Summation by parts reduces the prime series to the gap series, and the tails TN=∑j≥1 gN+j 2−j satisfy TN+1=2TN−gN+1. That recurrence characterises rationality and yields finite tests with explicit remainder bounds. An exact finite certificate shows that a rational value of the prime series would have denominator at least 239998>1012040. The bound does not establish irrationality.

Explains
the complete problem-specific reasoning surface for Erdős #251, including all registered result families and their boundaries.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #251, which remains open.

Reciprocal Mersenne Subseries

What weighted and cover criteria prove hereditary Mersenne irrationality for Erdős #257, and which targets remain open?

Read online PDF, 152 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

A weighted summability criterion proves irrationality of reciprocal Mersenne subseries: if h is the part of a supported on a finite nonempty prime set P, every infinite A with ∑ h(a)/(a(bh(a)−1)) finite has irrational ∑ (ba−1)−1. The base-two condition gives the conclusion at every integer base for every infinite subset, and permits an example with divergent reciprocal sum, while excluding full support and all odd exponents. The proof averages over a finite part of the support and over dyadic observation lengths. Erdős's weaker reciprocal-summable theorem is proved in full, and a common window extends both arguments to unions of weighted and positive-cover supports. Finite-denominator and achievement-set calculations formulate tests for the targets 1/2 and 1/21; those tests do not decide either target or the universal question. Prime support at base 2 and squarefree support at power-of-two bases are attributed as existing work.

Explains
a claim-bounded problem-specific reasoning surface for Erdős #257: selected checked premises, finite computations, closed routes, surviving obligations, and their exact evidence bands.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #257, whose universal and half-value questions remain open.

Running least common multiples: distinct values and multiplicities

How do distinct running-LCM irrationality, infinite-rank kernels and repeated-sum tail arithmetic fit together, and which residue windows remain open?

Read online PDF, 73 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

For the prime set {2,3,5}, a five-map argument proves irrationality of the sum over distinct running LCMs. Two-prime sums reduce to a transcendental Hecke–Mahler value. For the repeated three-prime sum, an equivalent residue criterion leaves an arithmetic condition open. Complete ordinary arguments for general distinct-running-LCM sums and prime-power subseries are retained as remarks awaiting formalisation.

Explains
distinct-height irrationality, all-rank kernel structure and the repeated-sum tail criteria, preserving the multiplicity distinction and the remaining open residue-window obligation.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #269, which remains open.

Paths in Polynomial Lemniscates: A Degree-Seven Counterexample and Radial Connections

How does ani's degree-seven counterexample work, which polynomial families admit short paths, and which critical-value constructions remain unformalised?

Read online PDF, 86 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The record gives the rational estimates and geometric proof for ani's degree-seven polynomial: every connected set in its strict unit lemniscate joining two roots has Hausdorff measure greater than two. It develops contained paths for trinomials, collinear roots and two sparse families. Ordinary analytic arguments for critical-value criteria retain their unformalised inputs beside the statements. Critical-value moments, counterexamples to prescribed paths and questions about flow-strip geometry complete the account. The one-polynomial formal statement and correspondence with the historical wording remain distinct.

Explains
the exact geometry of ani's one-polynomial counterexample, proved positive families and critical-value arguments with their unformalised inputs identified; formal-statement status and historical correspondence remain owned by the claims registry.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or the current status of Erdős #1041, including the later one-polynomial Formal Conjectures path-image Hausdorff-length check and its unreviewed historical curve-length correspondence; those distinctions belong to docs/claims.json in the mathematics repository.

Geometric Moments and Rational Lambert Values: Proofs and Further Results

How are the sharp fixed-base Hankel asymptotic and rational-base irrationality criterion proved, and why do the remaining methods not settle 3/2?

Read online PDF, 80 pages LaTeX source plectis-erdos on GitHub

Abstract and reading guide

The record proves the fixed-base Hankel asymptotic for Zudilin's normalised moments and the rational-base irrationality criterion log b/log a<0.4056830213840605…. The determinant proof separates geometric node configurations from positive weights; the irrationality proof instead specialises Zudilin's 2004 polynomial forms after cancellation. Coefficient moments, evaluated lattices and congruence conditions distinguish integer divisibility from nonzero remainder decay. A broader ratio-limit argument and a rational-value model remain unformalised. None of these arguments settles F(3/2).

Explains
the sharp fixed-base Hankel asymptotic and rational-base irrationality proofs, coefficient moments and arithmetic obstructions, with ordinary ratio-limit and rational-value models distinguished from checked results.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, or a solution to Erdős #1049, which remains open.

3 papers, Retired manuscripts

Superseded work is not deleted. Each of these remains in its home repository so an existing citation still resolves, and each is marked so no reader mistakes it for the current route.

Tail Certificates and Achievement-Set Geometry for Erdős Problems 249 and 257

What is mathematically proved about Erdős #249 and #257, and what exactly remains open?

Superseded, and kept here so an existing citation still resolves.

PDF on GitHub LaTeX source in plectis-erdos

Abstract and reading guide

The combined mathematical exposition for Erdős #249 and #257, superseded by the problem-specific notes and kept for provenance.

Explains
retired combined mathematical exposition preserved for provenance; its problem-specific successors are the active reader routes.
Not authority for
the validity of claims tagged Lean, which belongs to the cited kernel-checked source, and public claim status, which belongs to docs/claims.json.

From a Cold Clone to a Proof Receipt

How can a reasoning agent comprehend a large Lean corpus before compiling, then cross into replayable proof authority and incremental validation?

Superseded, and kept here so an existing citation still resolves.

PDF on GitHub, 12 pages LaTeX source in plectis-erdos

Abstract and reading guide

A large formal library can be mechanically exact and still be practically unreadable to the next reader or reasoning agent. At the audited revision a cold clone exposes a bounded six-line tour over 1,019 Lean modules and 153,238 declarations, a map of ten programmes, 101 curated claims, and an elaborated reference graph, none of which requires a build. 503 of those modules and 8,171 of those declarations are marked machine-generated certificate shards, counted as source and never as claims, and that marking is a classification floor rather than the true generated share, since earlier emitted families predate the markers. Navigation receives no proof authority: probe verdicts come from the pinned Lean process and cannot be authored by the agent, and a claim must cite an accepted probe that replay reruns from stored bytes. The audit was author-operated; no external contributor had completed the tour or documented return path by 31 August 2026.

Explains
the agent-navigation architecture: layered corpus projections, bounded intent routing, kernel-authored session receipts, focused builds, and exact dependency-index cache receipts.
Not authority for
proof validity, optimal reasoning, external mathematical novelty, or demonstrated transfer to another formalisation project.

From Spare Compute to Cumulative Mathematics

How can outsiders contribute compute, mathematical direction, architecture, or review without receiving authority to declare a proof?

Superseded, and kept here so an existing citation still resolves.

PDF on GitHub, 26 pages LaTeX source in plectis-erdos

Abstract and reading guide

A public Lean repository can serve as a shared conversion layer between compute, agent capability, human mathematical direction, infrastructure quality, and review. The paper defines role-bounded work packets, two first-class contribution tracks, provenance and credit, safe untrusted returns, and a candidate-to-attention funnel. Formal verification strengthens one evidence layer; human meaning, novelty, significance, and broad mathematical adoption remain separate. The eight Erdős problems are hard test worlds and all remain open. This is a working prototype; no completed external cold clone or landed outside contribution was recorded by 31 August 2026.

Explains
the open-source strategy: how outside compute, mathematics, architecture improvements, review, and credit enter one bounded commons.
Not authority for
a solution to any Erdős problem, measured discovery-rate improvement, human peer review, novelty, significance, or community endorsement.

The earlier software has its own documentation, starting at its overview.