The whole point of Lean is that you don't need to understand the entire proof to be sure that it's correct. You only need to understand the definition of the theorem being proven, and you need to trust that the relatively small core of Lean is correct.
> In July 2026, a disproof of the Collatz conjecture was verified not only by Lean, but another formal verification system Nanoda. However, investigation quickly revealed that the proof exploited bug(s) in these verifiers.
Why should you trust that the relatively small core of Lean is correct?
The core of Lean got a lot less correct when a well-meaning AI system probed Lean for corner cases (bugs) that would "prove" a false conjecture. Corner cases so arcane that no human exploit in a proof. Basically, humans are too stupid to break human-created Lean, but the AI is not.
Lean does have libraries, but since they are also in lean they are subject to the same rules. It's basically a super strong type checker. If it compiles the proof is valid. Unless there is a bug in the type checker.
They could, for example:
1. Rely on users flagging suspected repos (with human moderators reviewing afterwards).
2. Deploying AI agents to evaluate repos against known AI-generated-code patterns (also with human moderators afterwards). Of course, the irony of the situation - using slop machines to fight slop.
Indeed, but having more data might be able to solve that? The whole problem seems to be that benign conditions sometimes look scary because we're currently not able to predict well enough whether it's something that will eventually cause problems.
Not in the same way, no, because they have not been targeted, while they should have if the same rules applied, according to Anthropic's depiction of the situation.
This is potential tyranny aimed at Anthropic, specifically.
Europe doesn't seem to care so much about erratic and hostile governments when it cozied up to Russian gas for decades, something it still continues to do just hiding behind third party countries.
It's a clear statement that European morals are purely performative
Just like how the EU is hostile towards US companies, but very light to the touch when it comes to corruption with HSBC, FIFA or VW. With such hostile and erratic allies, who needs enemies?
Let's not even get into Orban. You can never trust the EU again since who knows if they're capable of electing someone like that in the future? Trust is broken forever
Great, great point. That's why people who say NATO can't be relied on anymore aren't making sense - NATO never elected Trump, so his involvement or opinion on it doesn't matter.
Verifying that every step in a (potentially long) proof is sound can of course be much, much harder than verifying that a definition is correct. That's kind of the whole point.
That's not what the parent comment meant. They meant checking the Lean-language definitions actually match the mathematical English ones, and that the Lean theorems match the ones in the paper. If that's true then you don't actually need to check the proofs. But you absolutely need to check the definitions, and you can't really do that without sufficient mathematical maturity.
Yes, and the child comment’s point is that formalizing the problem is likely easier than having the LLM verify that each step of a long deduction is correct, which is why Lean might be helpful.
But both of you are ignoring the parent comment! Actually you're ignoring the context of the thread.
Originally someone said "I wish I was math smart to know if [this vibe-mathematics proof] worked or not." They did NOT say "I'd like to check but I am too lazy." Suggesting "ask it to formalize it in Lean" is useless if you're not mathematically mature enough to understand the proof, since that means you're not mathematically mature enough to understand how to formalize the problem.
Then "likely easier" is a moot point. A Lean program you're not knowledgeable enough to sanity-check is precisely as useless as a math proof you're not knowledgeable enough to read.
It’s not useless, because you can, for example, ask multiple frontier models to do the formalization and see if they agree. And if they have surface-level differences in formalization, you can also ask them whether apparently-different definitions are equivalent.
This isn’t perfect of course - perhaps every single model is wrong. But you are too quick to declare that something isn’t useful for arriving at an answer. Reducing the surface area of what needs to be checked is good regardless.
By "online wallet" they were likely referring to the Bybit website being the wallet of those customers that held their coins there rather than keeping them in their own private wallets, and not whether the hack involved a hot wallet or a cold wallet. Calling it a custodial wallet would have been more accurate.
The largest supermarket chain in the Netherlands has currently halted most of its distribution centers due to an ongoing "cybersecurity incident": https://nltimes.nl/2026/10/12/empty-shelves-likely-albert-he...
reply