Claim-Level Verification for AI-Assisted Mathematics: A Kernel-Closed Hamilton Classification and a Mixed-Boundary Rado Study

Proof Engine programme: companion case study. For the flagship methodological account, start with Proof Engine Infrastructure. AI-assisted mathematical work often combines formal proofs, solver outputs, and explicit witnesses. Readers need to know which claim each object supports and which dependencies remain unresolved. This article develops a comparative case study of that task through a Hamilton classification and a Rado-number investigation. Its verification-profile concepts were incorporated into and extended by Proof Engine Infrastructure, which organizes claim dependencies, composes accepted evidence, and revises research status after correction. The present article provides the complementary case-level account: explicit links from mathematical statements to verification objects, the conclusions licensed by each check, and the assumptions retained by their downstream uses. The Hamilton case traces complete cycle and path classifications for the noncrossing partition refinement graph to matching Lean 4 endpoints with only standard logical dependencies. The Rado case, for x + by = bz, separates a constructive lower bound, finite satisfiability (SAT) obligations, formal deductions using specified computational inputs, and an open threshold conjecture. In particular, checking the published coloring establishes R_5(3) > 296, whereas a Lean declaration that assumes the same bound does not independently verify that witness. The comparison distinguishes the heterogeneity of checking procedures from the completeness of support for a stated target. It also distinguishes evidence accumulation for a fixed claim from withdrawal and revalidation after a correction. The contribution is a worked audit of these boundaries, with a reusable claim-to-evidence record and concrete checking routes. It helps readers assess both fully closed results and rigorously delimited partial studies within the broader Proof Engine framework.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20571189
Primary Topic
Logic, programming, and type systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Claim-Level Verification for AI-Assisted Mathematics: A Kernel-Closed Hamilton Classification and a Mixed-Boundary Rado Study

Alex LI
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Logic, programming, and type systems
article

Claim-Level Verification for AI-Assisted Mathematics: A Kernel-Closed Hamilton Classification and a Mixed-Boundary Rado Study

Alex LI
article en

Abstract

Proof Engine programme: companion case study. For the flagship methodological account, start with Proof Engine Infrastructure. AI-assisted mathematical work often combines formal proofs, solver outputs, and explicit witnesses. Readers need to know which claim each object supports and which dependencies remain unresolved. This article develops a comparative case study of that task through a Hamilton classification and a Rado-number investigation. Its verification-profile concepts were incorporated into and extended by Proof Engine Infrastructure, which organizes claim dependencies, composes accepted evidence, and revises research status after correction. The present article provides the complementary case-level account: explicit links from mathematical statements to verification objects, the conclusions licensed by each check, and the assumptions retained by their downstream uses. The Hamilton case traces complete cycle and path classifications for the noncrossing partition refinement graph to matching Lean 4 endpoints with only standard logical dependencies. The Rado case, for x + by = bz, separates a constructive lower bound, finite satisfiability (SAT) obligations, formal deductions using specified computational inputs, and an open threshold conjecture. In particular, checking the published coloring establishes R_5(3) > 296, whereas a Lean declaration that assumes the same bound does not independently verify that witness. The comparison distinguishes the heterogeneity of checking procedures from the completeness of support for a stated target. It also distinguishes evidence accumulation for a fixed claim from withdrawal and revalidation after a correction. The contribution is a worked audit of these boundaries, with a reusable claim-to-evidence record and concrete checking routes. It helps readers assess both fully closed results and rigorously delimited partial studies within the broader Proof Engine framework.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Oldham Council (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 46%
Logic, programming, and type systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.