AI-generated, Lean-verified proof of Collatz conjecture exploits Lean kernel bug
Okay, we have a new contender for Most AI Thing to Ever Happen 1) July 25th: someone messes around with an LLM and posts a proof of the Collatz conjecture that does, in fact, verify in the theorem prover. (The AI use is not disclosed on the github page) https://github.com/xrchz/CollatzLean 2) July 26th: several serious bugs are posted in the theorem provers, that in principle could allow a false statement to be "proven" true. They're serious, yes, but no need for panic, because you're not going to blunder into accidentally exploiting the bugs while writing a proof, probably. https://github.com/leanprover/lean-kernel-arena/pull/81 3) July 28th: someone who was right to be very skeptical of the Collatz proof, and had the expertise to study it with a fine-toothed comb, discovered it was exploiting a bug https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/14576 4) The "proof" turns out to be exploiting multiple similar but distinct bugs to pass different solver variants! 5) the human who posted the proof acknowledges the AI use and claims they did not knowingly point it towards the bugs it exploited. https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean4/topic/Counterexample.20to.20the.20Lean.20Conjecture.20.28Soundness.20Bug.29/near/613135216 Note that the proof was posted shortly before the related bug reports were posted. It is an open question if the AI found people discussing the bugs shortly before they were formally posted and "decided" to exploit them, if the AI "k
2 outlets in our directory ran this story, first to last over 20 hours. All of the coverage we found sits in one bucket: centre. That one-sidedness is itself worth noticing.
- ▪ AI "Proves" Collatz Conjecture with Lean 4 Bug — X (formerly Twitter)
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 3,075 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Infosec Exchange |
| Canonical URL | https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943 |
| Publication time | Thu, 30 Jul 2026 14:26:15 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-07-30T14:32:02.784Z |
| Last seen | 2026-07-30T14:32:02.784Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher description |
| Excerpt method | Publisher-supplied description / RSS summary field. |
| Summary | None yet |
| Summary source text | description |
| Citation coverage | No WeSearch summary has been generated for this story yet. |
| Cluster | tti1eEyl_Vx3 · 2 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Infosec Exchange
