Erdős Problem #671
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
For triangular arrays of nodes let be the Lagrange interpolation polynomials of a continuous , with fundamental polynomials . Is there a choice of nodes such that for every continuous there is some where and yet ? Is there a choice with for every , yet for every continuous some has ? Both questions are claimed resolved in the affirmative.
Context
Both parts claimed answered affirmatively, with a Lean formalization; two proof claims are filed on erdosproblems.com but the problem is still listed open
A numbered Erdos problem that carries a $250 Erdos prize, setting it above the typical entry in the catalog.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
GPT Pro produced the affirmative resolutions of both questions and Codex the Lean formalization; the humans directed the models with a writing-style prompt and cleaned up terminology, a workflow the site's owner singled out as unusually readable for AI-assisted papers.
Both parts claimed answered affirmatively, with a Lean formalization; two proof claims are filed on erdosproblems.com but the problem is still listed open
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Lean formalization of the result
The argument comes with a Codex-produced Lean formalization checkable online; no independent audit of statement fidelity, and erdosproblems.com still lists the problem open with the claims filed.
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.