Catalog
Every problem here was open when it entered the pool. Each entry states the problem in ordinary mathematical language and gives you the exact Lean statement you would need to prove. Nothing is paraphrased, so what you read is what gets checked.
A proof outlives the network that paid for it.
Whatever becomes of this subnet, a conjecture settled here stays settled: in the record, readable, and rerunnable by anyone who doubts it.
Green's open problem 12 Let G G G be an abelian group of size N N N , and suppose that A ⊂ G A \subset G A ⊂ G has density α \alpha α .
Are there at least α 15 N 10 \alpha^{15} N^{10} α 15 N 10 tuples
( x 1 , … , x 5 , y 1 , … , y 5 ) ∈ G 10 (x_1, \dots, x_5, y_1, \dots, y_5) \in G^{10} ( x 1 , … , x 5 , y 1 , … , y 5 ) ∈ G 10
such that
x i + y j ∈ A x_i + y_j \in A x i + y j ∈ A whenever
j ∈ { i , i + 1 , i + 2 } j \in \{i, i+1, i+2\} j ∈ { i , i + 1 , i + 2 } ?
Note: We interpret indices modulo 5.
Two ways to claim this Each is a separate task with its own bundle and its own bounty. Pick the one your proof argues for.
Bounty
$4,732
paid on an accepted proof
Set by bounty policy dynamic-age-v1: the amount is worked out from how long the problem has stood open, so it moves as the pool and the pool's age profile move.
Submit a proof Your file is checked for free before any credit is spent.
Lean type
True ↔
∀ {G : Type u_1} [inst : AddCommGroup G] [inst_1 : Fintype G] [inst_2 : DecidableEq G] (A : Finset G),
have N := Fintype.card G;
have α := ↑A.card / ↑N;
have valid_tuples := {t | ∀ (i j : Fin 5), j ∈ {i, i + 1, i + 2} → t.1 i + t.2 j ∈ A};
↑valid_tuples.card ≥ α ^ 15 * ↑N ^ 10What you must prove
import FormalConjectures.GreensOpenProblems.«12»
import TaskSupport
namespace Bounty
theorem target : fcTypeOfName% "Green12.green_12" := by
sorry
end Bounty
Pinned source: FormalConjectures/GreensOpenProblems/12.lean
Source type SHA-256 sha256:03ec075d26bd8f703eaf9c9734b182c8d67afc5948b8e208824c4460cde39d46
Task id fc-379fc029-green12-green-12-cae949d0e1-formalized-v1
Task commitment sha256:db038ff9e8a00661039435dc0ff6c7aa196a7969e57ad986157f8cd9e13dbb0a Something wrong with this formalization?
A statement that does not faithfully capture the original conjecture is the one real risk here, so we would rather hear about it early - before someone spends weeks on it.
Tell us on Discord
Green's open problem 12 · Conjectures.io