OpenAI mistranslated mathematics into code for its Navier-Stokes proof
New Scientist reports that a proof written for people and a proof written for a computer do not match.
TL;DR
- New Scientist reports that OpenAI produced one Navier-Stokes proof for human readers and one for a computer, and that the two do not match. [1]
- The account describes using ChatGPT to look for discrepancies between the natural-language proof and the Lean proof, then checking suggestions by hand. [1]
- A mismatch between the two texts is not, by itself, a verdict on whether either proof is valid. [1]
New Scientist’s headline says OpenAI mistranslated mathematics into code for its Navier-Stokes proof. The description of the article says that when OpenAI announced a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem, it produced one proof for humans and one for computers, and that the two do not match. [1] [1]
The report describes a process of asking ChatGPT to look for discrepancies between the natural-language proof and the Lean proof, then checking those suggestions by hand. That is a method of comparison. It is not a claim that every suggestion from the model was a real error. [1] [1]
Readers should separate two questions. One is whether the human-readable argument and the formal Lean text say the same thing. New Scientist says they do not. The other is whether a correct proof of the Navier-Stokes problem now exists. This brief does not answer the second question. [1] [1]
The article was discussed on Hacker News. Mathematicians will need the texts themselves to decide which side of the mismatch, if either, can be repaired. Until that checking is public in more than one technical account, the confirmed point is the mismatch New Scientist describes. [1,2] [1] [2]
Why it matters
Formal proofs are only as useful as the claim that the formal text matches the argument people think was proved. A reported gap between those texts is a reliability issue for AI-assisted mathematics.
Editor's note
The mismatch and the comparison method are taken from New Scientist. This brief does not re-check the Lean file.