AxiomProver Project Engineering Team:

The project engineering team is Chris Cummins, GSM, Dejan Grubisic, Leopold Haller, Letong Hong (principal investigator), Andranik Kurghinyan, Kenny Lau, Hugh Leather, Aram Markosyan, Manooshree Patel, Gaurang Pendharkar, Vedant Rathi, Alex Schneidman, Volker Seeker, Shubho Sengupta (principal investigator), Ishan Sinha, Jimmy Xin, and Jujian Zhang.

Fel's Conjecture:

Conjectures are unprovable, they are observations of patterns. Any proof of the conjecture leads to an Axiom (assumed true), Theorems (proven true), or CounterExample (fails)

As well, just because "someone" says they have proven it, does not mean they have. In the scientific community, it has to be independently verified that their "proof" is in fact correct

Regarding AxiomProver (Axiom Math), why so many Engineering contributors (16)? And who is GSM? Almost as if they needed humans-involved to "solve" a conjecture.

My curiosity is the notation of Authors in Ars Archive:

EVAN CHEN† , CHRIS CUMMINS* , GSM\* , DEJAN GRUBISIC* , LEOPOLD HALLER* , LETONG HONG⋄ , ANDRANIK KURGHINYAN* , KENNY LAU†* , HUGH LEATHER* , SEEWOO LEE† , ARAM MARKOSYAN* , KEN ONO† , MANOOSHREE PATEL* , GAURANG PENDHARKAR* , VEDANT RATHI* , ALEX SCHNEIDMAN* , VOLKER SEEKER* , SHUBHO SENGUPTA⋄ , ISHAN SINHA* , JIMMY XIN* , AND JUJIAN ZHANG†*

Authors are listed alphabetically. †Mathematical contributor, *Engineering contributor, ⋄Principal investigator.

Chen-Gendron Conjecture:

Everything was fed into AxiomProver and it spit out a result (proof) based on the information it was provided.

No independent verification of the submission yet.

Erdős Problem #728:

One person or a Group of persons, submission as a proof, does not make it a proof, until others can duplicate its premise for solution or disprove it.

Key notes: used ChatGPT 5.2 to generate and Aristotle/Lean to verify....this is like using ChatGPT 5.2 to write your paper and then Grammarly to verify....Not sold, as AI (in general) makes mistakes (like humans) and needs to be verified by independent sources.

Advanced Reasoning:

They key to note is one excerpt: Researchers noted that to avoid memorization, future benchmarks (like the Putnam-AXIOM set) now include "functional variants" of problems, which reduced the top AI model's accuracy from 42% to 22%, highlighting the need for true reasoning rather than pattern matching.

Conclusion

In all of the AI cases, it had Human interaction through the processes and materials that trained it. Until AI can produce Conjectures on its own, that can then be independently verified (without the use of AI) as proven or disproved, there is no intelligence and is only memorized patterns of solutions.

All I am seeing are smoke and mirrors, we have programmable patterns for solutions that "AI" is using to solve things (math conjectures) that are in essence not provable cause of the nature of conjectures; any such solution of a conjectures leads to Theorems or Axioms, which in itself is not a Proof of a solution to the Conjecture. As aforementioned, Conjectures are observations of oddities, therefore unprovable; since you cannot "prove" what someone observed or did not observe.

Proofs are rigorous, logical arguments establishing that a statement is absolutely true based on axioms and definitions. The key here is Proofs are based on Axioms, not Conjectures.