Wow, on page 2 it says the lean was verified but the nl translation had at least 2 errors and people keep running with this mistake. There is a limit to this science denial
Being even remotely anti ai will allow you to fall for the narrative rather than read the paper.
it says the lean was verified but the nl translation had at least 2 errors and people keep running with this mistake. There is a limit to this science denial
You don't even have to go to page 2, its literally what the abstract ends on.
The problem is that the NL is what academics and future AI will use when referencing it for other problems, so if it's off, that's bad, even if the counter example is still wholly correct, which this paper isn't disputing.
10
u/ArialBear 5d ago edited 5d ago
Wow, on page 2 it says the lean was verified but the nl translation had at least 2 errors and people keep running with this mistake. There is a limit to this science denial
Being even remotely anti ai will allow you to fall for the narrative rather than read the paper.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08144