What was already known
The source is Vojdanovski’s supplied manuscript and earlier local developments. The general Fröberg conjecture predicts the Hilbert series in all degrees; this checkpoint has both a variable threshold and a degree cutoff.
AI involvement
OpenAI Codex agents wrote and repaired Lean proofs against Vojdanovski’s supplied and revised manuscript, reusing Mathlib and credited OpenAI equidistribution modules. Human steering is distinct from an independent proof review.
The theorem and mathematical manuscript were supplied and revised by Vojdanovski; Codex translated and repaired the Lean implementation.
Importance
Makes a uniform partial theorem machine-checkable, including its quadratic argument in arbitrary characteristic.
Limitations
Does not resolve the full Fröberg conjecture or cover every number of variables. The AI disclosure attributes substantial formal proof engineering to agents, without establishing that AI discovered the manuscript theorem. Public revisions of some earlier local developments are not recorded. AIProofWatch has not rebuilt the formal development or audited the complete proof. Palomar reports mechanical checking of a pinned statement; its automated statement review is not human peer review. The reported date records this registry checkpoint; the earlier first-report date of the formalization has not been established.
Technical verification
Reported is the default when evidence for a higher level is insufficient. No qualifying AI mathematical contribution remains in the proposed scope. Existing checks of the human result or its translation are retained as current evidence, without transferring them to an invented included AI contribution.
Formal checking
Registry-reported Comparator and kernel checking; not reproduced by AIProofWatch.
- Checker
- Palomar: Lean, NanoDa and con-ron (reported)
- Scope
- FrobergPaper.main_result and the 15 compared statement definitions at b32bc82f7eea38479abab80b6b74649026c15d24, with only the three standard Lean axioms.
- Basis
- Reported by the linked checker
- Check date
- 2026-10-11
Checking a formal statement does not establish that it matches the original problem.
Human understanding
Few is the default when evidence for a higher level is insufficient. No sufficient account of a named human explaining the scoped central reasoning is established in this assessment. Missing disclosure is not evidence of little understanding.
Correction and publication history
Source-statement, baseline, AI-role and verification-scope review, 14 October 2026. New curated contribution; eligible for matching consented digests.
Read this published revision