ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

First Proof Question 8: Smoothing Polyhedral Lagrangians

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

first-proof-q8-polyhedral-lagrangiansGeometry & topologyposed by Mohammed Abouzaid et al. (the First Proof experiment), 2026recorded: candidate

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Question 8 of the First Proof experiment (Abouzaid et al.) asks whether a polyhedral Lagrangian surface with exactly four faces meeting at every vertex necessarily admits a Lagrangian smoothing. The research report assembles ChatGPT-suggested constructions into an affirmative argument for orientable surfaces in (R4,ω)(\mathbb{R}^4, \omega): smooth the edges, verify the vertex links are unknots with rot 0 and tb -1, and cap off with Lagrangian disks via Chartraine's results.

Context

A numbered question from the First Proof experiment, a curated 2026 problem list by leading symplectic topologists designed precisely to test AI-assisted mathematics.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

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.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

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

1 attempt

No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    constructionChatGPT 5.2, Gemini Pro with Antonio Alfieri, Connor Novak ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    ChatGPT 5.2, Gemini Pro
    people
    Antonio Alfieri, Connor Novak

    A deliberate two-team methodology: Team A explored solutions with ChatGPT 5.2 and had to defend the generated material; Team B checked correctness with human reasoning plus Gemini Pro. The report even documents ChatGPT's initial wrong idea (a spurious obstruction), and a key citation the model gestured at was pinned down by the humans in review meetings.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No 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

no comments

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.