Infinite paths in the composite-restricted visible lattice
An infinite lattice path answers Erdős’s question; the theorem also prescribes almost every limiting direction in an interval.
Explore this resultThe flagship mathematics programme at Crab Research. Proof Engine develops reliable AI-assisted mathematical research through precise statements, readable arguments, and reproducible proof evidence.
A reading route through open problems, classifications and constructive theories.
An infinite lattice path answers Erdős’s question; the theorem also prescribes almost every limiting direction in an interval.
Explore this resultWhich coefficient sequences come from symmetric tropical matrices? A constructive criterion connects realization, reconstruction and parameterized algorithms.
Explore this resultAn exact tiling formula develops into a finite-defect path model and generating functions for the first defect diagonal.
Explore this resultHamilton cycles and paths in noncrossing partition refinement graphs: a classification for every order, with constructions and parity obstructions.
Explore this resultFrom a known three-letter case to every alphabet size, with exact counts, fixed-rank asymptotics and a probabilistic limit.
Explore this resultA uniform proof of the known root-polytope projection theorem replaces a classification check and gives a rootwise estimate.
Explore this resultSelections introduce different contributions; review levels remain specific to each paper.
Formal verification expresses a theorem and its proof in a form a proof assistant can check. The categories below explain which checks are complete and which assumptions remain.
Internally reviewed and publicly released. Complete formalization of the principal conclusions is not yet established; errors may remain.
Some cited theorems are stated as explicit assumptions. The proof assistant checks the remaining argument conditional on them; their proofs are not yet included in the released package.
The proof assistant checks every theorem dependency, including cited results, without additional theorem assumptions. Only foundational axioms, the starting principles listed here, are allowed. We also check correspondence to the paper; exposition may still need correction.
propext (Propositional extensionality); Classical.choice (Classical choice); Quot.sound (Quotient soundness).
Accepted by a journal or peer-reviewed proceedings after independent review. This records external scholarly acceptance; acceptance and formal publication are recorded separately.
Kernel-Only is our only accepted final formalization standard. Reference-Gated has lower assurance and is released only as an intermediate milestone when the engineering effort is exceptionally large. Peer review does not remove a remaining theorem assumption.
Cited results must have precise statements, sources and corresponding checked formal theorems. Existing kernel-checked Lean/mathlib proofs may be reused. All dependencies must ultimately reduce to propext, Classical.choice and Quot.sound; extra theorem axioms, sorry and unchecked native-computation shortcuts are excluded.
A Reference-Gated release must publish its gate manifest: exact statements, hypotheses and quantifiers, source locations, formal assumptions and the conclusions that depend on them. Reaching Kernel-Only requires eliminating every gate through checked proofs and rechecking the final endpoint and paper correspondence.
The endpoint axiom report identifies what the proof actually depends on. Its statement must still be checked against the intended mathematical theorem; an axiom report alone does not establish that correspondence.
We believe the significant change in AI-era mathematics goes beyond an increase in output: rapid generation exposes the missing engineering layer connecting verification, interpretation, reuse and maintenance, and opens up a new division of research work. AI can help generate candidate arguments and explore proof paths; emerging roles such as mathematical engineers can turn this material into checkable, reproducible and maintainable results; mathematicians remain central to choosing worthwhile questions, discovering structure, creating concepts, and explaining and generalizing results. These roles can overlap, and Proof Engine is exploring the basic feasibility of this division through public mathematical cases. For the detailed argument, see our methodology paper.
Complementary layers of mathematical research: 1.0 organizes proof development; 2.0 governs the mathematical investigation and can use 1.0 within it.
Composes exact claims, evidence and dependencies; keeps proof obligations explicit and propagates corrections through the argument.
Read the paper · SSRN 7237460Governs the question, intended contribution and evidence needed for a mathematical investigation. Autonomous execution remains within human-approved scope.
Read the paper · Zenodo Working PaperSSRN Working Papers present developed research. Some are maintained as standalone working papers by design. Research maturity and publication status are recorded separately.
4 papers · First public: newest first · Records updated 2026-09-07
A complementary project-level method for source inquiry, existing-solution checks, statement correspondence, and the governance of changing mathematical objectives.
A methodological account of statement correspondence, evidence, and the engineering surrounding kernel verification.
A claim-graph method for accountable AI-assisted mathematical research; the public technical description of Proof Engine 1.0.
Companion case study in the Proof Engine programme: worked Hamilton and Rado audits of claim-level evidence, checking boundaries and residual dependencies. The flagship Proof Engine Infrastructure paper develops the general methodology.