Users criticized the GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture for omitting citations to prior works and questioning whether key ideas like flows were independently discovered.
Based on 3 visible X reactions from 1 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
I assume that these previous works were a big influence on the OpenAI proof, and it is a shame that it does not mention them at all - if one just read the OpenAI paper one might get the impression that the idea to study cycle covers by F_2^3 flows on cubic graphs is brand new.
This is definitely not the case. This is a frequent issue with AI-generated proofs and papers: they use ideas and proof strategies taken from the literature without proper citation.
Proof is surprising short https://twitter.com/__eknight__/status/2075643450196971805
Users criticized the GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture for omitting citations to prior works and questioning whether key ideas like flows were independently discovered.
Based on 3 visible X reactions from 1 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.