Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Dynamical system: input on some edits please

There is a discussion at Talk:Dynamical system#reverted to 16 august 2026 version about some recent disagreements on edits. I think further input is needed so I am posting here. I will add that the article looks like it needs quite a lot of work beyond the recent edits under discussion. N.B., I am also posting to WT:Physics, so please post any comments on the dynamical system's talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

What is going on there? That page is a mess - it's far too long to start with, and I can't make any sense of the edit warring. Paul Matthews (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I have been working on a complete rewrite, so the details of this particular dispute seem irrelevant to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

That's courageous of you, to enter that edit war with a complete rewrite! If your version is less full of unnecessary technical jargon than the current version, I would support that. Paul Matthews (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

OpenAI's "Sharing AI progress in mathematics" announcement

Related: OpenAI claimed to have solved lots of major conjectures ( https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints ), including having produced a counterexample to Arnold's Nearby Lagrangian conjecture ( https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/A-counterexample-to-the-nearby-Lagrangian-conjecture-September-23-2026 ). ~2026-53882-51 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It's many more. See this quick-and-dirty overview, limited to claimed full proofs or counterexamples to conjectures that we have a standalone article about, transcluded below:

A quick-and-dirty overview of results announced in OpenAI's "Sharing AI progress in mathematics" post that claim to prove or disprove a conjecture which has a standalone article on English Wikipedia (as of the date of the announcement: October 6, 2026).

Catalog entry (PDF page)	Conjecture	Claimed result (summary by GPT 6 Astra xhigh)	Preprint(s) on GitHub
028 (p.4)	Gaussian moat problem	Proof: no infinite bounded-step walk through distinct Gaussian primes.	Bounded-Step Walks on Gaussian Primes
034 (p.5)	Abundance conjecture	Proof of log abundance in every dimension, including the projective characteristic-zero formulation.	Characteristic zero; compact Kähler spaces
039 (p.6)	Nagata's conjecture on curves; Nagata–Biran conjecture	Proof of Nagata’s inequality and maximal multipoint Seshadri constants.	Nagata; Seshadri constants on surfaces; higher dimensions; positive characteristic
072 (p.9)	Brennan conjecture	Proof throughout the conjectured exponent range.	Brennan’s conjecture and sharp inverse-square integral means
073 (p.9)	Falconer's conjecture	Proof in every dimension $d\geq 2$.	The Falconer distance conjecture in all dimensions
102 (p.12)	Unique games conjecture	Proof of Khot’s conjecture.	The Unique Games Theorem
156 (p.17)	Borsuk's conjecture	Counterexample in dimension nine.	A nine-dimensional counterexample to Borsuk’s covering assertion
157 (p.18)	Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory)	Disproof by counterexample.	A counterexample to Hadwiger’s conjecture
159 (p.18)	Erdős conjecture on arithmetic progressions	Proof that divergent reciprocal sum forces arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.	Quasipolynomial Bounds for Arithmetic Progressions
161 (p.18)	Sidorenko's conjecture	Disproof by a bipartite-graph counterexample.	A counterexample to Sidorenko’s conjecture
162 (p.18)	Ryser's conjecture	Disproof of the hypergraph covering conjecture.	Original counterexample; balanced prime-order counterexamples
165 (p.18)	Turán's brick factory problem	Proof of the Zarankiewicz crossing-number conjecture.	The crossing number of complete bipartite graphs
173 (p.19)	Second neighborhood problem	Proof of Seymour’s conjecture.	A proof of Seymour’s second-neighborhood conjecture
179 (p.20)	Ryser's conjecture on circulant Hadamard matrices	Proof that only orders one and four occur.	The circulant Hadamard conjecture
180 (p.20)	Barnette's conjecture	Proof of the Hamiltonian-cycle conjecture.	Paired states and Hamiltonian cycles in cubic bipartite planar graphs
191 (p.21)	Heilbronn triangle problem	Disproof of the conjectured $n^{-2+o(1)}$ upper-bound scale.	A power improvement in the Heilbronn triangle lower bound
193 (p.21)	Serre's multiplicity conjectures	Proof of positivity, including ramified mixed characteristic.	Positivity of Serre’s Intersection Multiplicity
196 (p.21)	Kaplansky's conjectures	Disproof of the zero-divisor conjecture.	A Torsion-Free Group Algebra with Zero Divisors
199 (p.22)	Nakayama's conjecture	Counterexamples to the classical, generalized and strong forms.	Auslander–Reiten counterexample; Tachikawa counterexample
201 (p.22)	Kurosh problem	Negative solution to the division-ring version.	A Counterexample to Kurosh’s Division-Ring Problem
206 (p.22)	Finite lattice representation problem	Disproof: some finite lattices are not congruence lattices of finite algebras.	Negative solution; characterization and undecidability
213 (p.23)	Dying percolation conjecture	Proof of absence of infinite critical clusters, including all lattice dimensions $d\geq 2$.	No percolation at criticality on quasi-transitive graphs
247 (p.27)	Burnside problem	Negative solution even for finitely presented residually finite torsion groups.	Residually finite 2-group; finitely presented periodic group
249 (p.27)	Eilenberg–Ganea conjecture	Counterexample with cohomological dimension two and geometric dimension three.	A finitely generated counterexample to the Eilenberg–Ganea conjecture
285 (p.31)	Baum–Connes conjecture	Disproof of the coefficient-free reduced formulation.	Injectivity counterexample; irrational-trace counterexample
297 (p.32)	Naimark's problem	Counterexample in ZFC.	A counterexample to Naimark’s problem in ZFC
304 (p.33)	Hilbert–Smith conjecture	Proof in every dimension.	The Hilbert–Smith conjecture in every finite dimension
312 (p.34)	Homotopy hypothesis	Proof of Grothendieck’s formulation.	The Grothendieck homotopy hypothesis via elementary expansions
320 (p.35)	Borel conjecture	Counterexample in dimension four.	Nonhomeomorphic closed aspherical four-manifolds with the same homotopy type
325 (p.35)	Crouzeix's conjecture	Proof of the stronger complete formulation with constant two.	Direct proof; structural proof
337 (p.36)	Cartan–Hadamard conjecture	Proof of the isoperimetric conjecture in every dimension.	Generalized Cartan–Hadamard isoperimetry and Euclidean equality rigidity
340 (p.37)	Nearby Lagrangian conjecture	Disproof by counterexample.	A counterexample to the nearby Lagrangian conjecture
347 (p.37)	Arnold conjecture	Disproof of strong Morse and stable Morse fixed-point bounds.	Dimension-22 counterexamples; cyclic Floer bound; stable Morse bound; nondegenerate Morse bound; three-fixed-point example

Table generated using ChatGPT (GPT 6 Astra xhigh)

Not sure how to best handle all this, but while in recent months there has been ample debate in the mathematics world about questions of priority, proof quality etc., I haven't seen many experts seriously questioning the correctness of other proofs that were officially announced by OpenAI (as opposed to AI-generated proofs published by amateurs of course).

Note that some of these articles may already have been updated with other recent AI-assisted proofs (OpenAI held theirs back for several weeks and doesn't seem to claim priority), e.g. the last one in the list (see above).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't care if they're correct, we care if they're attested. We can mention these preprints in their respective articles (they're probably noteworthy), but we have to call them preprints. The article structures probably don't have to change much for now. Once the results are published in journals, we can integrate them fully. The Boolean^_Talk 04:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been reverting many of these additions, sourced only to primary and unreliable preprints. We should wait until we have reliable sources before adding them. See WP:DEADLINE. In particular, we cannot rely on these for sourcing the descriptions of the problems they solve. For instance, for Heilbronn's problem, there was an old and long-refuted conjecture that the answer was $\Theta (1/n^{2})$ but where can we find stated as a conjecture the claimed conjecture that, after this refutation, the exponent should have been 2? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Adding the preprints probably isn't worth it, on second thought; I'd been thinking of some articles that referenced preprints, but those were unusual cases where the articles were accepted by the community but never actually published. The Boolean^_Talk 05:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If they hadn't released these all at once we could reasonably expect secondary coverage of such major results quickly. As it is, I don't know how long we're likely to wait. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

At the rate these things are developing, I would tend to expect further acceleration, noting that many of these would presumably have been headline-worthy as single results even some months previously. I get that there is no deadline, but with this many important results getting released, and a slightly dim prospect of them all getting independent write-ups even if the Lean formalizations check out, it seems to me that the likely result of not mentioning these at all will be (1) WP gets so far behind that getting it up to date later becomes even harder and (2) eternally reverting well-meaning editors trying to add the results back in anyway, even with due caution and caveats. Just my two cents. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If the mathematical community is too overloaded to evaluate AI output, then the kind of sources we need to write articles won't exist. So we can't write them. That's not a reason to lower our standards. It just means that whatever we do is necessarily downstream of how the mathematics community figures out how to cope with proof-by-Github-dump. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

To me that would fly straight in the face of WP:IAR. Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Surely, if they're "too overloaded to evaluate AI output", that should have some bearing on their reliability for the purposes of claims of openness of problems, right? McYeee (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No. The mathematical community is experiencing a sustained assault from from external forces that view mathematics primarily as a marketing exercise; this is just not similar to anything that has ever happened before. I agree with TB, DE, SCD, and Tercer on the questions involved here and the importance of not rushing. --JBL (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Speed has never been a criterion for reliability. It's common for the review of mathematical papers to take years.

I do think the days of human mathematics are numbered, but even after after it becomes a purely AI affair I don't think we'll take whatever a single LLM outputs as gospel.

In any case, Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows, the mathematical community is who will decide how to handle this, not us. Tercer (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I think blanket-removing all mention of these claims goes too far. Take Old revision of Catalan's constant, which said: "In October 2026, OpenAI released a manuscript produced by an internal model claiming a proof that Catalan's constant is irrational." That sentence is objectively true; that really did happen in October 2026. A primary source is the only verification needed for the sentence, as long as it's WP:INTEXT-attributed to OpenAI.

For contrast, we would not want to make a bare assertion of mathematical truth like "Catalan's constant is irrational" at this time. It's too early for that. I'd argue that it's also too early to remove {{unsolved}}. But it's not too early to mention that the OpenAI claim has been released to the public. Melchoir (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. In-text attribution is not sufficient for unevaluated, promotional claims. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If a paper comes with it, and accepted proofs have already come in previous months from the same company's models, then to me it is more than a "promotional claim", even if it is obviously still a claim. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS says that even when prior work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, caution is still needed, because if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. Even being as favorable as possible to OpenAI, treating them collectively as a "subject-matter expert" for the sake of the argument, our guideline counsels against inclusion. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, I'll agree that your level of caution applies to mathematical truth-claims. In general, the point of WP:EXPERTSPS is to guard against substantive truth-claims without reliable sources. I just think a far lower level of caution applies when merely stating the uncontroversial fact that a given preprint exists. (And I don't want to be in the business of divining whether someone's preprint is promotional, or whether their intentions are noble. That seems like a distraction.) Melchoir (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Any claim that starts "In October 2026,..." fails WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:NOTNEWS is "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information." That's the opposite of supporting a position that anything too recent must not be included in an article.

For comparison, I've personally added updates to Prince Rupert's cube and Triangular billiards stating "an August 2025 preprint claims..." and "A June 2026 preprint ... claims...". Nobody complained then. Of course not: As long as Wikipedia has an article on a topic, that article should be kept up-to-date. It seems to me that the resistance in this case is more about people's emotional response to OpenAI and less about the editorial concerns for an encyclopedia. Melchoir (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I revert people making this kind of edit all the time; please in the future don’t use brand-new preprints as primary sources on their own accomplishments. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's a rando on math.GM, of course I wouldn't. But when Giovanni Forni uploads a preprint claiming to solve an important open problem in his field, yeah, I'm going to mention it. As long as the claim is cited correctly, there's no WP:V policy concern either way. The only difference between the two cases is a matter of discernment. Melchoir (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The only difference between the two cases is a matter of discernment. Have we interacted enough before that I should have known you were an asshole and not just deeply wrongheaded? --JBL (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Would you strike your comment? Insults are not helpful here. McYeee (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

It's always possible that nobody complained because nobody noticed.... Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

In the case of Triangular billiards, I was H:THANKed for my edit by an editor who is now in this thread, arguing against mentioning the preprints. And the history of Prince Rupert's cube shows plenty of regulars. Melchoir (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not just "emotional response", but also that anyone doing effectively infinite bot tasks can easily overwhelm the finite resources available to human checkers.

We get the same kind of problem with people running much simpler bots here at Wikipedia, where a few minutes of the bot operator's time directing unlimited compute resources can eat up unbounded amounts of human labor double checking it. This creates a massive asymmetry.

OpenAI can easily overwhelm the entire mathematical community, let alone just Wikipedians. –jacobolus (t) 22:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument that it would have been better if OpenAI had left the problems open. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with whether the problems are actually open. McYeee (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It has to do with whether tools like peer review and secondary literature can digest the results, and whether downstream consumers like Wikipedia authors and readers can have confidence in them. –jacobolus (t) 23:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If we can't have confidence in them, then we should, at the very least, not state that the problems are open if the results are still being digested. Right? McYeee (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

My impression is that the usual practice (both on Wikipedia and out in the world) is to continue to consider problems "open" pending solutions published in peer-reviewed journals. –jacobolus (t) 03:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

My understanding was that, out in the world, people generally considered problems open until they became aware of someone else having written out a correct solution. Waiting for a journal publication is normal for prizes, but those are a separate thing from calling something open. McYeee (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

But it is not up-to-date information. "In October 2026,..." is an unconfirmed claim. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you opposed to removing claims in our articles that the problems that OpenAI claims to solve are open? It seems silly to keep claiming that those problems are open when we don't have any reason to believe that they still are. Ideally, it seems like we should say that they were open as of the publication of whatever source we cite regarding their openness. McYeee (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't care if they're correct, we care if they're attested - true, but my observations above were not about whether we (Wikipedians) think they are correct, but whether independent experts (academic research mathematicians) generally think that the source (whatever its other failings may be) has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS (obviously it's still a primary source; the independence criterion of WP:RS is not satisfied of course). And that seems to be the case. Also, as Scientific American attests, many of the results have already been verified in Lean—a programming language that validates a proof’s logic—and are therefore all but certain to be correct. (Yes, some people still worry about Lean kernel bugs and the like, no, not many experts seem to take such concerns seriously in the context of such results.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, we don't care what Mathematicians thought about whether the problems were open a week ago. We care about what they think now. When we claim a problem is open, that's a really strong claim. In a lot of cases, it's a fairer reading of the sources to say "such and such problem was open as of" than to say that it is open. McYeee (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

To clarify in case the indentation was confusing, my comment was a response to this, not to your comment. (I agree that claims about unsolvedness generally need to 1. be sourced per WP:V, 2. carry an "as of" per MOS:DATED.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

How should Template:Unsolved be dated? That template is pretty widely used, and I've never seen it dated. McYeee (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Lean kernel bugs are not a serious concern, but it is a real problem to determine that whatever Lean formalized was what we indeed wanted to prove. I tried to read one of these Lean formalizations; the statement of the theorem was plausible, but it was in terms of some custom definitions. Then I went to read those definitions, and they were in terms of other custom definitions. And so on, and so on, until I gave up going down the rabbit hole.

We do need to wait for the mathematical community to digest the results and evaluate whether they indeed solve the problems. Until then we should only report them as noteworthy claims. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, we need which logical foundation is used by a Lean proof: Fermat's Last Theorem was first proved by using implicitly the existence ofGrothendieck universes, an axiom independent of ZFC. Later, it was proved that the proof can be done in ZFC only. As far as I know, it is unknown whether there exists a proof in ZF (without the axiom of choice), or even in Peano arithmetic. So, a proof that does not describe explicitly the logical axioms that are used is not a correct formal proof. D.Lazard (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach of waiting for the results to go fully through the standard peer-review process before at all mentioning them on Wikipedia. I suppose the issue is one of what is a reputable source. If mathematicians consider OpenAI reputable in their output (which talking to them they seem to; there seems to be a widespread belief that the proofs are most likely correct), does that make it reputable enough to at least mention that they have a claimed proof? I would say so. On the other hand each individual proof is a primary source, so shouldn't be cited until secondary sources mention it. However, given the exponential progress in mathematical output in due to AIs, even significant results are not getting the coverage they would otherwise get, simply because there is so much there. So I am for mentioning the existence of the results on the respective Wikipedia pages (not that they are proven yet tho; that does require additional verification).

I mean, the Navier-Stokes result was put on Wikipedia almost instantly, well even before a human fully read the proof; so it hasn't passed the peer-review process. The language used is explicitly that a result has been "claimed", which is also what is the case for all these results. And news organizations have corroborated that OpenAI has claimed many results, but have not called out each result individually cause there are just so many. But I would say that at least that is one (admittedly indirect) secondary source concerning the 700+ primary sources. Just how i see things tho. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether OpenAI made these announcements, which is undisputed, nor whether the claimed results are actually correct. The question is whether the announcements deserve inclusion in articles about the underlying mathematical problems. WP:VNOT makes clear that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS are particularly relevant here.

Why should OpenAI's preprints receive special treatment when comparable preprints claiming major mathematical results are not ordinarily added to Wikipedia immediately? If anything, the sheer number of manuscripts (722) calls for greater caution, especially given the withdrawal of 3 manuscripts, the revision of 14 others and reported discrepancies between a natural-language proof and its Lean formalization.

It is worth recalling that a recent claim to prove the irrationality of Catalan's constant prompted an edit to the corresponding Wikipedia article, only for serious gaps to be identified shortly afterwards.

I therefore think we should wait for substantive independent mathematical assessment of individual results, ideally by experts who understand the proofs well enough to evaluate their correctness. This need not mean formal journal publication. Until then, I see no compelling reason to include these announcements in articles about the mathematical problems themselves, regardless of whether the claimed results ultimately turn out to be true, particularly given WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS. Nolord (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, I agree with your framing but not your conclusion. Surely giving due weight to the announcements, whose notability is widely attested, means the appropriate number of words to include in any given article is greater than zero? I would personally be satisfied with a single sentence! "In October 2026, OpenAI published a manuscript claiming to prove the Hilbert-Smith conjecture in all dimensions." That's just 17 words, and it doesn't try to present OpenAI's claim as the majority viewpoint. Melchoir (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to reacquaint yourself with the words of WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies: "Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it." These preprints are not reliable sources, so even if you are sure they are making the claims you think they are making, you need a published reliable source for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Melchior's proposed wording makes no claim about the correctness of the preprints, merely their existence. The verifiability of their correctness is irrelevant to his wording, and the verifiability of their existence is trivial. McYeee (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about correctness? The wording of WP:V makes no distinction between claims that something has been proven and claims that something has been claimed to be proven. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

A preprint is a reliable source for its own existence and can be used with attribution. Arguably these are also reliable for factual claims because the frontier models have established mathematical expertise. I think the relevant comparison is to preprints published by other advanced laboratories such as CERN or the JWST. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

A preprint is a reliable source for its own existence but not its own correctness or its own significance. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Would you prefer this? "In October 2026, OpenAI published a manuscript whose abstract begins, 'We prove the Hilbert–Smith conjecture in every finite dimension'." Melchoir (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Or we could just wait until there is peer review and some secondary literature. –jacobolus (t) 07:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't do both. For now, we write what's supported by the kinds of sources we already have: the primary source itself, and if necessary, the secondary sources to show notability. When other sources become available, we include those too. Melchoir (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There is another problem with these claimed results: they are anonymous, as a company (Open AI) cannot be an author. It can hold the rights (if any), but it cannot be an author. There is certainly someone who drove the software in view of solving conjectures, and it is this (these) persons who is (are) the author(s). So, all these announcements are self published anonymous primary sources, and must considered as such.

It must be noted that Anthropic results, such as the counter example to Jacobian conjecture, have a human author, even if one does not know his exact role. D.Lazard (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• I think there are several questions here which, in the beforetimes were connected, but are becoming increasingly decoupled in practice: whether a result has undergone conventional peer review, and whether there are reliable sources sufficient for Wikipedia to report its status. I agree that we should not simply read an AI preprint and decide for ourselves if it proves the theorem it claims to. In particular, even a Lean formalization does not by itself establish that a formalized statement is precisely equivalent to a historically stated conjecture, or settle questions about hypotheses, novelty, significance, etc. Those kinds of judgments require independent sources.

But I don't think that "wait until it appears in a refereed journal" is going to be a workable standard anymore. (We might have said something like this in the beforetimes, not to straw-man anyone here.) Some of these results may never go through conventional peer review. What seems to be happening is that individual members of the mathematical community are examining the formalizations and manuscripts, experts come to regard some of them as correct, and yellow-media sources are reporting that assessment often in very broad terms. But it isn't yet being played out in journals; maybe it never will. Scientific American reports that many of these results have been verified in Lean and regards those formalized results as certain to be logically correct, while Quanta is already discussing individual Lean-verified results and the remaining questions about their interpretation and significance. For a formalized result, machine-checking is in one respect considerably stronger than conventional peer-review: it verifies the deduction from the encoded definitions and assumptions down to the kernel. It obviously does not replace a separate human judgment that the encoded theorem is the theorem we think it is, etc. But I don't see why the absence of a journal publication should override independent sources making those judgments, even if these secondary sources are not themselves mathematics journals.

So I would distinguish the cases as follows. Where there is only the OpenAI repository, we should normally wait (an outside possibility is to have a separate list article of problems for which OpenAI/Anthropic have claimed solutions). Where independent sources report the announcement but have not evaluated it, we can say with attribution a claimed solution. Where independent sources treat the result as established, I don't think Wikipedia should continue to describe the problem as open merely because nobody has put the proof through the traditional journal pipeline.

The thing here is that the old sequence "preprint → referee reports → journal publication → community acceptance → encyclopedia' may no longer describe how mathematical results become accepted. Wikipedia should still be downstream of the mathematical community, but being downstream of that means that we should follow any reliable attestation of the community's assessment, rather than insisting on one particular publication mechanism. The community is not known to issue bulletins. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Calm down. WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTNEWS. We are witnessing the death of human mathematics, it will take a while for the dust to settle down. Not even a day has passed since the announcement. We'll wait to see how the mathematics community deals with this and follow accordingly. Tercer (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

First, WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTNEWS don't stand for the proposition that all news must be removed. Second, is it obvious that Wikipedia must follow the mathematics community? I don't think that's the case. The norms of an encyclopedia don't have to be identical to the norms of its topics.

Suppose two countries, A and B, have some diplomatic conflict. In a daring midnight strike, A occupies the capital of B and raises their flag. This is, of course, front-page news. Everyone is talking about this dramatic act that A just did.

In the Wikipedia article for B, do we wait for the "legitimate" government-in-exile of B to hold meetings and issue a press release, before we can even mention that this event took place? No, it sucks for B, but we don't owe them that. Our obligation is to the readers. And the readers of the article about B absolutely want to know the situation. (This is a particularly painful pill to swallow for the regulars at WikiProject B, who are aligned with B and wish that the event didn't happen.) Melchoir (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that Wikipedia must follow the mathematics community. We have always followed mainstream academia and always will.

In your example the established reliable sources about whether some country had conquered a city or not are news agencies like Associated Press or Reuters. We'd report on it when they do.

In the case of mathematics the people who decided whether some claimed mathematical proof is valid are mathematicians. Not some private company, not some news agency, not some popular science magazine, and not Wikipedia editors. Of course, several of the editors here are mathematicians in real life, and we can use their opinion when expressed in channels used by the mathematical community outside Wikipedia. Tercer (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Beware, this is a very strong claim you're making. Yes, we should follow the research community on questions of what mathematical statements are true. But we do not need to follow the community's norms for how and when to disseminate those statements in conferences, journals, monographs, textbooks etc., because Wikipedia is not one of those things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should have an encyclopedic viewpoint of any topic that it covers. Even if the topic is a mathematical object, the Wikipedia article should cover angles outside of the formal mathematics, including history, education, applications, and interactions with society. A claim that a lab has solved a problem is absolutely in bounds for an encyclopedia, even if it would not be in bounds, say, for a textbook.

As for waiting for reliable sources to report, you've already got Scientific American, The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Economist, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, etc. This is not an event where it's hard to find commentary.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but it's bizarre to me that this point isn't dispositive: We don't need to decide that a proof is valid! Wikipedia doesn't ever decide what's true. The existence of the claim is verifiable, and that's enough to say that the claim is there. So, again: "In October 2026, OpenAI claimed a proof of X". That's all you need to say, and then there are no edit wars, no newbies trying to helpfully "update" an article for the Nth time, none of the articles need to be locked. Why is this mild, conservative, common-sense compromise not just the end of the thread? Melchoir (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, multiple reliable secondary sources have already decided OpenAI's claim is notable, and that's enough for Wikipedia to report the claim -- while sidestepping their validity. fgnievinski (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Multiple things that are verifiable are not included in Wikipedia because they do not have published reliable sources. We regularly get mathematicians trying to push their unpublished work into Wikipedia and balking at our sourcing requirements because, they say, the proofs verify themselves. We regularly get people pushing to include daily transportation schedules into Wikipedia because, they say, they verify themselves. We regularly get editors pushing to include claims about content that can be seen on old photos because, they say, they verify themselves. Nevertheless, in these cases, we ask for reliable sources. Why should we lower those standards to help a tech company promote itself? The sources we need should come soon enough and for some of these claims already have. For the rest, what's the rush? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, we sometimes do and sometimes don't include verifiable statements. It seems we agree that the decision is, then, not a matter of higher or lower standards or the WP:V policy, but a matter of judgement. Well, if a reader happens across our article on the Hilbert–Smith conjecture and reads it from top to bottom, I judge that that reader should know that OpenAI has claimed a solution. I don't care at all whether we're helping OpenAI in that interaction. I mean, personally I'd rather not go out of my way to help them, but that's irrelevant. For Wikipedia's purposes, we should care only about the reader. Every day that we delay merely mentioning OpenAI's claim, that's another 20 daily readers who aren't getting the encyclopedic picture. Melchoir (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Those 20 readers not keeping up with every OpenAI announcement on the day it happens will be just fine. –jacobolus (t) 06:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The examples you gave all involve primary sources. That would be the case if we had only OpenAI's preprint or PR. But it got covered by newspapers and magazines already. There's probably enough for even a standalone article to survive AfD. You don't think it deserves mention at least in AI and maths? fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliability here is a red herring. While I personally think OpenAI's math releases are reliable for mathematical claims, we should err on the side of caution and use attribution until there is more secondary coverage. They are certainly reliable for attributed statements. I think the analogy with some rando on the internet is not the one to use, but a major lab like CERN or the JWST. We should not normally have to wait until "the particle physics community" or the "astronomy community" responds to preprints by groups from either of these before reporting attributed findings. From that perspective, waiting for journals, etc, to respond, is a higher standard, not a lower one. Also, I agree with Melchoir, that the epistemic status of a putatively open problem is one of the most important aspects of it for readers, so a reliable claim from a lab widely regarded as a subject-matter expert should be covered with attribution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. OpenAI isnt a just a random person shouting into a void. Its more in line with CERN. When CERN/other major scientific collaborations publishes a pre-print, we sometimes mention it on Wikipedia even before it went through the full peer-review process. While OpenAI is a a private company, its mathematical output seems to be considered reasonably reliable at this point by the mathematical community. Not infallible ofc. But reliable enough to say that "OpenAI has claimed to prove...". So once again I am for allowing us to write this statement on the articles. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

CERN is a scientific organization who publish serious research by real scientists. OpenAI is an LLM slop factory who publish half-baked work unread by any human. The two are not really comparable. –jacobolus (t) 03:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this, and it is way out of line with what "the mathematics community" has been saying. For example, an open letter to the Royal Society signed by many top mathematicians states: "In the last 3 months we have seen the leading models of OpenAI and Anthropic develop from around the level of a strong student to having solved multiple open questions at the forefront of research, including one of the 7 Millennium problems. These models are now operating at the level of the top human mathematicians in many parts of the subject and we must assume there is a significant chance of them developing superhuman abilities within a similarly short timeframe... Our witnessing of the rise in capabilities of these models in our domain of expertise persuades us that such statements must not be dismissed as 'hype'." A different letter, signed by 25 Fields Medalists a month ago states "Over the last few months, the mathematical capabilities of LLMs have improved dramatically, to the point that they can solve major outstanding problems in many fields of mathematics." Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Both things are simultaneously true: it can solve major open problems and publish nonsensical manuscripts with elementary mistakes. This is not something people do, we can expect basic checking and discernment from the top experts. But it's not human, beware of the mind-projection fallacy. Tercer (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

They clearly "can solve major outstanding problems", but the outputs are poorly organized, poorly written, don't properly cite past work, and don't meet the most basic standards of scientific publication. We should not immediately jump to trusting them until the work has had time for peer review and digestion by competent experts. –jacobolus (t) 18:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

You are arguing with the wrong person: what I'm talking about is how to decide whether the proofs are correct. As I wrote elsewhere, I do think the claims themselves should be mentioned. Even if some of them turn out to be wrong (as I'm certain will happen) it still merits a sentence in the article to say that OpenAI claimed to solve it but then it was disproved. Tercer (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree about this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I was replying to @Melchoir, not you. Tercer (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

do we wait for the "legitimate" government-in-exile of B to hold meetings and issue a press release? Not necessarily, but we definitely wait for a reliable news source to report it. Eigenbra (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Would we wait for a separate news source to mention each town has been conquered, or would it be sufficient to find a reliable source that says “A published an accurate list of the towns they conquered”? I would think we'd do the latter, but we're currently doing the former. McYeee (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

You're definitely stretching the metaphor here, but I don't see your point. If it's not clear from the RS news coverage whether town X is occupied, then no, I would not rely on a press release by country A to make that claim on the Wikipedia article for town X. Eigenbra (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

We, for example, list Chersonesus Cathedral as being in disputed territory. We have reliable sources that describe it as being on the outskirts of Sevastopol, and we have reliable sources describing Sevastopol and its surrounding area as disputed territory, but I am not aware of any reliable sources stating that actually state that the cathedral is in disputed territory.

The analogy here is that Scientific American's assessment of the veracity of OpenAI’s Lean proofs as analogous to reliable sources describing the extent of the territorial dispute in Crimea and that OpenAI's lean proof is analogous to, for example, the Cathedral's website stating that it's on the outskirts of Sevastopol, which we would accept as sufficiently reliable. McYeee (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Tercer: Not sure how your reply is remotely responsive to what I wrote. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been reverting edits that only reference the GitHub repo or the OpenAI announcement. I'm not sure I have a strong opinion yet about when we should update these articles, but it isn't now.  cjquines  (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Would it be sufficient to cite both Scientific American and the Git repo? McYeee (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If said Scientific American article mentions that OpenAI claims to have solved conjecture X, I think that'd be an okay reference for "OpenAI claims to have solved X." The article itself only mentions the Kakeya conjecture, so I wouldn't cite it for any other conjecture.  cjquines  (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Scientific American reports that many of these results have been verified in Lean and regards those formalized results as certain to be logically correct... while the literature itself is saying slow down, there. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote, perhaps inartfully, in the post you are responding to: Lean proofs are certainly correct; what requires checking is whether the formalized statement is the statement we think it is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

True, but that's a different matter, and despite the enormous amount of scrutiny that OpenAI's release has already received in the last two days (including plenty of criticism of other aspects) I'm not aware of claims so far that any of the Lean statements it relied on were wrong/incorrectly formalized (did you see any?).

As for that new preprint, it seems valid and interesting in itself, but Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (like many people on social media right now) seems to be confused about its implications regarding whether OpenAI has solved the Navier-Stokes Millennium problem or not - as explained e.g. by Alex Kontorovich here (it's a nothingburger) or Scott Armstrong (from CNRS/Courant Institute) here (I wake up to multiple people sending me the new arxiv paper [2610.08144] as though it is big news. [...] sometimes the lean will go a slightly different route than the informal version, often for good and harmless reasons.). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you and Alex Kontorovich, but even if we were dead wrong about that, the fact that OpenAI made the claim would still be notable. We'd then eventually have to add the word "incorrectly" to some articles, but so what? McYeee (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I've linked this discussion from WP:RSN#OpenAI/mathMcYeee (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

To quote Moshe Y. Vardi (in reference to P vs. NP) the space of algorithms is very large. The pace of AI hacking away at the underbrush shall only acclerate. Our job is to document how the mathematics community deals with the new division of labor. kencf0618 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't judge by myself, but I've talked to a tenured mathematician who has read three of those called "preprints" (are they prior to journal publication? I really doubt they will be published) in areas where he has considerable expertise, and in synopsis: They are so poorly written that they could never be published in any top mathematical journal (or any serious periodical for what matters...). If a human submited any of those as they are now for peer review as their own work, it would be automatically discarded as garbage. Why lower our standards for OpenAI? Their preprints are low-quality ones. ~2026-54007-50 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Unless the tenured mathematician tells you that in a way we can cite, I don't think their opinion changes anything here. McYeee (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Were OpenAI's "results" published in any journal? Stop trying to push your point of view. Even Perelman's results had to gain recognition from other mathematicians. ~2026-54007-50 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

They were not published in any journal. What of it? McYeee (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

So they are one level below arXiv preprints in terms of reliability. Wikipedia doesn't accept arXiv preprints as sources, but at least they have some human author we can identify as responsible for the content, as opposed to those hundreds of preprints signed by "OpenAI". ~2026-54007-50 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of our views on their credibility, we have reliable sources about their existence and likely correctness. McYeee (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's an expert expressing the same thought in writing: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10169

It feels like something written by someone who’s on psychedelics. So much unclear and doesn’t make sense. Lots of name dropping of previous work without discussing why it can be used despite impossibility results Eigenbra (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

And yet, the same expert quoted later in the comments:

The Unique Games Conjecture is true, though it wasn’t really needed for the proof of its most famous corollaries (like optimal hardness of approximating Max-Cut and other constraint satisfaction problems). The published proof of the conjecture somehow makes the short code approach* work with a bunch of new ideas (it’ll take time to understand exactly how, the writeup is poorly written). I still wonder whether it’s possible to prove the conjecture via the half-space code.
* Addendum: Upon further inspection, the proof constructs a completely new tree-based code that somehow has a noise test with properties similar to that of the short code. ...

And in comment #32 Scott Aaronson writes Dana tells me that she’s been asking Astra all day to explain the new proof of the UGC to her and it’s been doing an amazing job and she’s starting to understand the construction., and in #94 Dana tells me she now mostly understands the proof of the UGC, and is amazed by the new ideas in it, and wants to give talks about it soon. This doesn't particularly sound like saying that the work is garbage (even though the way it was written may have made it harder to distinguish from garbage at first). Anyway, just for context. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it premature to put together an RfC about what to do here. My proposed wording is as follows "Should statements of the current state of the art on mathematical problems state that OpenAI claims the solutions in OpenAI/math? (a) yes, wherever they claim them (b) only if reliable sources mention the claim (c) only if reliable sources state the claim (by name) is likely correct (d) only if reliable sources cover the proofs themselves and state they are mathematically correct (e) only if reliable sources exist and are specifically about the claimed proofs in question (d) no (f) only if verified in Lean" I don't expect (d) or (f) to be particularly popular, but I've included them for completeness. McYeee (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of trivia facts of results. There are many sources reporting on various llms being used. Thus, the notable information would belong in a history section akin to Four color theorem#History. Whether or not something is consider solved, improved, or novel as a result will come from sources in the future (might be a journal, international award, news coverage with an expert, etc.). OpenAI does not have much motivation to publish results in a formal journal, so some results might not be cited in a journal for a long time because it is solved.

In short, these problems have notable sources for their history sections. There are few to no reliable sources for (partial) solutions to the problems. EulerianTrail (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The epistemic status of a presumptively open problem is one of the most important things about it, far from being a "trivia fact". Therefore an article about such a problem should cover notable (and very likely correct) claims to a solution. This is especially true since, as you say, OpenAI has little incentive to publish these results in a conventional way. Readers would be best served by attributing it as a claimed solution, and letting them decide for themselves. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

In some (many?) case, the fact that a result has been claimed may be worth to mention in an encyclopedia. But, it must be clear that the claimed fact lacks an independent (from openAI) verification. For example, I edited the sentence added in Multiplication algorithm, resulting in In October 2026, OpenAI reported a lower bound ⁠$\displaystyle O(n(\log n)^{1-\varepsilon })$⁠, which, as of 9 October 2026, lacks of an independent verification. This seems compatible with Wikipedia policies, since the claim is notable, but not verified (WP:Verifiability).

Hopefully this could avoid further disruptive edits by meatpuppets of openAI. D.Lazard (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you aware of a reliable source that the new lower bound lacks independent verification? McYeee (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with you, Lazard. Ideally, we should have secondary sources especially for this result, since it contradicts decades of received wisdom and involves two of the most important and widely studied algorithms in mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a significant error in the quoted text above (introduced by our editors, not OpenAI), which was removed when the text was removed from the article. What OpenAI claimed was an upper bound, not a lower bound. Using O-notation in a lower bound makes no sense, and lower bounds on computational complexity should only be reported in a way that states the model of computation. A smaller issue is that the value or quantification of $\varepsilon$ is never stated; in this case it is a specific number, close to zero, and in informal writing researchers would make statements like this assuming their readers would know that meaning was intended, but in formal writing leaving it unbound is another error. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and the constant epsilon is explicit, although extremely small. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd go by (b) - mention it if a good reliable secondary source mentions it. And only say as much as is justified until some mathematically reliable source says it is correct. NadVolum (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Any RfC should also ask if "open" designations should be removed from articles without RS indicating the proof was processed and adjudicated by the math community. Eigenbra (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Anything else the RfC should address? I would phrase that second part as Should the word open be removed from descriptions of problems OpenAI/math preprints (other than those which have been withdrawn) claim to solve (1) Yes, unless reliable sources postdating OpenAI/math describe the problems as open or the OpenAI proofs as likely incorrect (2) No, unless reliable sources describe the problem as solved I would lean towards this being one RfC with two questions. Does that sound reasonable? I would support a1, and would strongly oppose d2 and f2, for example. McYeee (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The bulk of an article should stick to what reliable sources say is true, since that is what a naive reader likely wants to know. The speculative stuff should be listed at the bottom for those who are interested in it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

What counts a a reliable source for the claim that a problem is open? It seems to me that recency is especially important in declaring problems open. A source from five years ago declaring a problem open, for example, seems like it should only be reliable for the claim that the problem was open then, not that it is now. McYeee (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It is more of needing a reliable source to consider a problem resolved. EulerianTrail (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 --JBL (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow. If We don't have a reliable source to declare a problem unsolved and we don't have a reliable source to declare a problem solved, we shouldn't make a claim either way, right? McYeee (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I've heard OpenAI retracted some of the preprints, so their AI systems are not infalible proof makers after all. One should be careful. Hetimes (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

To McYeee: If you are asking me about how problems (open, open as of ---, maybe closed) would fit into the two parts I mentioned, I would put them under speculation. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

My biggest at this pointe now is that we speculatively claim that a bunch of problems (which were open a week ago) are open. Would you agree that's a problem? McYeee (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

To McYeee: I would not want to make a general rule for describing something so complicated. Just make an ad hoc description in the speculation section of each article you edit. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that we have currently speculation in ledes. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the article Gaussian moat problem is The problem was first posed in 1962 by Basil Gordon (although it has sometimes been erroneously attributed to Paul Erdős) and it remains unsolved. Given recent news, that's a completely speculative claim. It's effectively claiming the OpenAI proof either doesn't exist or is wrong. That is highly speculative McYeee (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Can this concern be solved with "as of date X" language? As in, "The problem was first posed in 1962 ... and it remains unsolved as of 1998," because the cited source is from 1998. Melchoir (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, except that there's a widely used template, Template:unsolved, which does not allow for that. McYeee (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Right. I just replied at Template talk:Unsolved; it feels like a fixable issue. Meanwhile there's nothing stopping us from clarifying the prose, outside of the template. Melchoir (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I somehow missed the replies over there. My bad. McYeee (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess my next gripe down on the list is that we frequently word things in such a way as to make our lists of results sound exhaustive. For example, we do this for ω at Computational complexity of matrix multiplication. Do you have a suggestion to fix that kind of thing? McYeee (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

My biggest at this pointe now is that we speculatively claim that a bunch of problems (which were open a week ago) are open. There is no standard meaning of the word "speculatively" that makes this statement true. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

In claiming that the problem is unsolved, we are necessarily speculating that the OpenAI preprint is incorrect. McYeee (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

No, this is not what the word "speculative" means. Time proceeds in one linear direction. Text that was written at time X about the state of things at time X does not become "speculative" at some later time if the situation changes, it becomes "outdated". It is difficult to believe that anyone could in good faith not understand this distinction. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Unlike journal articles and printed encyclopedia articles, Wikipedia articles are continuously updated. In those sources, there is an implicit "as of the time of publication" attached to every statement. There is no such implication on Wikipedia. WP:CURRENTLY applies to the descriptors like open when they are generally taken to mean "currently open". McYeee (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Your arguments are becoming increasingly tendentious. Words have meanings, websites do not time-travel just because they are less permanent than physical texts, and this entire line of argumentation is never going to convince anyone to agree with you. Please think about a better way to handle the fact that many people do not share your views for good reasons and in good faith than pursuing this kind of silliness. --JBL (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning of the word speculative, do you have any argument here that WP:CURRENTLY does not apply? In the same way that people, in good faith, disagree with me here, it's entirely possible for people to disagree with you in good faith.

If you believe I'm not acting in good faith, my understanding is that you are expected to either bring it to WP:ANI, or keep it to yourself. Is my understanding of that incorrect? McYeee (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Your invocation of WP:CURRENTLY is frankly idiotic, contrary to both the text and the spirit of the guideline, and no one could possibly come to the conclusion that it means what you say except by motivated reasoning. An exactly isomorphic argument to yours would prevent any statement on Wikipedia from being made in the present tense, because, like, things are constantly changing, dude [takes another bong hit].

There are apparently 25 editors who have made a combined 120 comments in this discussion; by my count you have made 29 of them (not to mention the numerous other fora in which you have pursued related discussions). That is well into WP:BLUDGEON territory. As far as I can tell you have yet to convince anyone to agree with you who didn't do so at the beginning. I have 0 interest in bringing you to ANI because I think you are an adult human being, capable of making grownup decisions in response to feedback about your behavior and the quality of your arguments. Evidently you have strongly held feelings about this---as do I---but please find better ways to handle them. --JBL (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about WP:UNCIVIL (idiotic, dude, bong hit etc.).

Your claims about present tense use betray a deep unfamiliarity with MOS:DATED, which pretty much says the opposite: Present-tense statements about things [that] are constantly changing (or, as that guideline calls it: Statements likely to become outdated) in fact

should be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording in prose can be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2026 [...]

In any case, it seems that consensus is already forming to bring the template in line with this principle.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

In claiming that the problem is unsolved, we are necessarily speculating that the OpenAI preprint is incorrect. I categorically disagree with this statement, and my disagreement has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "speculate." Claiming the problem is open or unsolved does not imply claiming that the purported solution is incorrect, merely that it has not been accepted as correct. It's not an objective fact, like whether Ali Khamenai is dead or alive. It's a social construct. Eigenbra (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly, think of it this way: if a blurry photograph is taken of a claimed new species we would wait for experts to confirm if a new species was found. Same thing here, the problem is open but upon review by peers may become resolved. It also might be good for new and old edits to remind themselves of WP:Civility before the thread gets to far out of hand. EulerianTrail (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Now there's a standalone article: OpenAI bulk release of mathematical papers. fgnievinski (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This is fantastic for our purposes, since the article can be used to mitigate a lot of the concerns raised in this thread! I'll explain what I mean by that later, when I have some time. Melchoir (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The major benefit here is that linking to that article does a lot of work, pretty efficiently, for the linking article. Consider adding a sentence like this to the article on the Hilbert–Smith conjecture:

In October 2026, a bulk release by OpenAI included a manuscript that claims, "We prove the Hilbert–Smith conjecture in every finite dimension".

1. With this format, there's no need to cite a variety of sources to establish notability for the release, because that's done in the dedicated article.

2. As a secondary benefit of (1), because the sentence doesn't need to work hard to establish notability, it avoids sounding promotional. (For example, there is no temptation to mention the number of papers, or to explicitly cite anyone's claim that the release is significant.)

3. Keeping the reference brief also helps to allay concerns of undue weight. The sentence is as short as possible, and it doesn't get a greater number of references in the reflist than any other historical item.

4. Since the standalone article already represents people's reactions to the release, there is no temptation to repeat those reactions in the linking article. That's important because it sidesteps a whole package of WP:NOR concerns that might otherwise come up. If, by contrast, we were to burden a single sentence with quoting the claimed result, establishing notability, and representing the whole range of viewpoints about OpenAI, all at the same time, then that sentence could easily run afoul of WP:SYNTH.

5. As a bonus, the standalone article serves to shield the linking article from editors who might otherwise be motivated to add details about the release that would be irrelevant and distracting in the context of the linking article. The blue link is a beacon that says: If you want to write about that topic, do it over there.

I'm not going to claim that this solution addresses 100% of the community's concerns, but I feel like it addresses quite a lot of them, so it's a robust path forward. Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense! Alaexis_¿question? 19:50, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a standalone article has its merit, but a wikilink is not a substitute for sourcing WP:CIRCULAR.

A better compromise would be to link to OpenAI bulk release of mathematical papers in the "See also" section of relevant articles, in accordance with MOS:SEEALSO and as suggested by Sapphorain. This would allow interested readers to learn about the announcements without giving undue prominence to unassessed claims. Nolord (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the article link be used in place of a citation, to support any assertions of fact, in the sense of WP:CIRCULAR. Instead, it merely relieves the linking article from needing to establish notability, since the standalone article shows that the OpenAI release has been discussed by independent secondary sources. (By contrast, a typical preprint doesn't get that coverage). So while I recognize that WP:CIRCULAR explains why a wikilink is not suitable as a citation, that doesn't mean that it can't serve other editorial purposes.

As for whether the link belongs under "See also", especially for the purpose of avoiding undue weight, that will be a case-by-case judgement call. It should depend on the structure of each article, how much of the article's topic the OpenAI result claims to resolve, and whether secondary sources speak to the significance of the claim. Honestly, in practice it will also depend on whether the consensus of editors expects that a given claim is likely to hold up, informed by such factors as Lean formalizations or expert opinions found in social media. (I'm not suggesting that we insert WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation into articles themselves. I'm just saying that among multiple alternative arrangements of an article that all satisfy WP:V, editors can use use more subjective arguments to decide which arrangement is the best.)

To sum up: I agree that "See also" is a useful compromise, which may be the right call for some articles. I just want to avoid suggesting that it's right for all articles. Melchoir (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this proposition of Melchoir doesn’t entirely avoid the risk of having very long sections concerning AI unreviewed manuscripts, depending on the nature of the problem addressed. In the case of the Riemann hypothesis, establishing that Re(s)>1/2+c is a zero-free region of the Riemann zeta function for any positive number c smaller than 1/2 is widely considered by the mathematical community to be nearly as hard as establishing the Riemann hypothesis itself. So a result on any such c would be ground breaking. Now we already would have presently

On 6 October 2026 a release by OpenAI included a manuscript that claims « We prove that Re(s)>7/8 is a zero-free region of the Riemann zeta function ».

With this proposition don’t we have the risk of having such entries multiply without bound, with 7/8 successively replaced by a long list of slowly decreasing constants?!--Sapphorain (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The primary result(s) (7/8 and 11/12 in Riemann case) are the most important, I don't think we need to add every potential improvement thereafter if they are just refinements of the novel method. IlkkaP (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Who is « we » that will enforce this? Who is sufficiently an expert to decide that 11/12, and then 7/8, are the « primary results » (and in that case why should 7/8 be mentioned at all?). Who is to decide that a claimed improvement « is just refinements of the novel method », when none of the manuscripts has been reviewed in the first place?! Sapphorain (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

"We" as Wikipedia editors. If you look at the claimed proofs, 7/8 is an intermediate step to reach 11/12. If there are further refinements using the same method, those papers will cite OpenAI results. IlkkaP (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

As 7/8 provides a larger zero free region than 11/12, and it is 7/8 that is an improvement of 11/12. This shows, once more, the need of reliable secondary sources written by experts of the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part in my comment. IlkkaP (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

If a claimed improvement is notable, as demonstrated by the claim itself having attracted secondary coverage, then we're likely to include it. There's a finite appetite, on the part of both subject-matter experts and journalists, for paying attention to such claims. So you don't have to worry that the coverage will multiply without bound. Human attention is the bound. Melchoir (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I had a long career as as researcher in analytic number theory, and was asked a number of times to « find the first mistake » in various « proofs » of the Riemann hypothesis and of other famous unsolved conjectures proposed by eminent crackpots (because of course there always was a first mistake). Producing a claimed proof with the help of an AI is undoubtedly quicker than without, but I see no objective reason to be more confident in its correctness, and to grant to such a proof a special exemption from a reliable review.

So I would (reluctantly) agree to your proposition if it is well understood that strictly nothing more than

"In October 2026, a bulk release by OpenAI included a manuscript that claims, «blah, blah»"

should ever be added to this short sentence before the claim is actually verified (or denied). Sapphorain (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that would be my intention. If it turns out to be necessary to discourage extrapolating from the claim, then any given article could even follow that sentence with an invisible comment pointing future editors to this discussion. (However, MOS:COMMENT also warns us that comments "should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits", so any comment should be worded delicately, and only if it's really needed. My hope is that such measures won't be needed.) Melchoir (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright, this thread seems to have petered out, and the link-to-standalone-article route has some support. Maybe it's reluctant support, but I'll take what I can get. So I'll apply it to the article I personally care about (which, if it wasn't clear, is Hilbert–Smith conjecture). Melchoir (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I did the same on the Riemann hypothesis page, under the "See also" link to the OpenAI bulk release of mathematical papers Sapphorain (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Is mathematics invented or discovered?

Hi, wikipedians! I want to create an article about the philosophical question "Is mathematics invented or discovered?", but first I need to know if it's appropriate for an encyclopedia (I don't want to turn it into an essay). There are some WP articles in this line for philosophical questions, such as "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?", "Why am I me?" and others... There are more than thousands of scholarly sources talking about this problem, but they don't have a single definitive answer that is accepted by most (it's a philosophical question after all), there are strong arguments for many different views on this. I will search for many reliable sources but only if you guys agree that the topic is appropriate (as I don't want to write an article that is gonna be deleted). Hetimes (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a strong argument that the Pythagorean theorem was discovered: different civilizations, isolated from one another, arrived at the same theorem. If the theorem were an invention, this would be extremely unlikely. But be careful, this is just one theorem, not all of mathematics... I can find sources for many arguments. Hetimes (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind... I can't do that. But here are some sources just in cases someone wants to write such article:

• Ernest, Paul. "Is mathematics discovered or invented." Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal 12 (1999) pp. 9–13.
• Livio, Mario. "Why math works." in The Best Writing on Mathematics (2012)
• Tall, David. "Crystalline concepts in long-term mathematical invention and discovery." For the Learning of Mathematics 31.1 (2011) pp. 3–8.

Best, Hetimes (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I think this topic (or perhaps broadened to a title along the lines of Discovery and invention in mathematics) could be a good subject for a Wikipedia article. But there is a lot of literature about it, and I think it would take some significant effort to give a neutral and accurate representation. –jacobolus (t) 06:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the philosophical findings relevant for an article on this topic, I often wince when mathematics is referred to as "invented" in Wikipedia voice, which happens from time to time. The general preference in mathematics is for "discovered"; mathematicians are almost all Platonists in language, if not in metaphysics. Exceptions might be for more obviously invented things, such as algorithms, but even here I would prefer verbs like "developed" or "introduced". Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the following question related to the article you want to write? "Is mathematics a priori or a posteriori?"--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unreasonable effectiveness gives examples that are both a priori and a posteriori, and, as far as I know, nobody proposed an explanation of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, although such an explanation should be fundamental to answer the question of the heading.

I agree with Sławomir Biały. In any case it seems impossible to answer to the question of the heading without answering first the same question about the foundations of mathematics: Was the concept of (natural) number invented or discovered? (one can set the same question for the concepts of a cat or of a chair). Were the concept of theorems and proofs invented or discovered? Was Aristotle's logic invented or discovered? (The answer may have changed with the introduction of other logics such as second order logic).

My opinion is thus that the question is irrelevant. Moreover, there are so many inanities published by people without real competence in mathematics that a selection of relevant publications would necessarily be WP:Original synthesis.

For people interested in this and related questions, I would recommend the citation 141 of Mathematics: Borel, Armand (1983). "Mathematics: Art and Science". The Mathematical Intelligencer. 5 (4). Springer: 9–17. doi:10.4171/news/103/8. ISSN 1027-488X.. It expresses a wide consensus among mathematicians and physicists interested in these questions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The question may be irrelevant, but many people don't know that, so having an article at Wikipedia explaining that such a famous question is irrelevant would be good (if someone can find sources for that, of course). BrennusRo (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The question may quite possibly be irrelevant to the practice of mathematics. That doesn't make it irrelevant to the people who ask it, and I suspect to the layperson it seems a perfectly reasonable question. On the whole, Wikipedia should be encouraging people to come here for answers to the questions they have. I don't think that suggesting that a reader's question is 'irrelevant' is the way to achieve that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding invented or discovered, sometimes one, sometimes the other, and the discussion is largely pointless, so I will not say more on that. But the issue of unreasonable effectiveness and the even more unreasonable attitude in self-congradulation about it should be addressed somewhere. The fact is that the general public would be surprised that we have no idea about some of the basic concept we use. Please do not bother to buy the book What is a logical system? I can tell you the conclusion: we have no idea. You read that right. When Logica Universalis started two decades ago, I had hopes that it might shed light on the issues. No way. The current issue is trying to figure out what a conditional may be. Does the public know that we are still debating these basic ideas? No. And our continued attitude in assuming that we know it all is quite alarming. That should be discussed somewhere. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Such an article could be at more of a statement title rather than a question title, e.g., Invention versus discovery of mathematics. BD2412 T 19:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at a Draft:Is mathematics invented or discovered?, incorporating points above. BD2412 T 21:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

FWIW anyone thinking about writing on this topic should probably also look at our articles Mathematical Platonism and Mathematical object, which have nontrivial content related to this topic. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Thanks, I have now incorporated some points from these directly. BD2412 T 00:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry, but I disagree as emphatically as possible. To begin with, please accept that there may be a conjunction, so some math is invented, some is discovered. So assuming a disjunction is not valid. Natural numbers and much of number theory has analogies in the physical world, as do rotation groups. But do categories exist in the physical world? Do tensors exist, or are they invented concepts for convenience? They are of course both invented concepts. And most people are not aware of the totally unmathematical roots of invented concepts. I happen to know through folklore that some very interesting results in math came about because the group inventing them were all against the Vietnam war in the 1960s when they were grad students, and that is how they got together. They say there are two things the public should never be told about, namely how sausages and laws are made. I think math is the third. Anyway, I will stop watching this page for a while. I have no more to say. Goodbye. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, you are just making the debate sound increasingly notable. BD2412 T 03:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

In mathematics, “or” is an inclusive or. --JBL (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me on that issue. Now I know that mathematically speaking, the answer to the question "Is Julius Caesar dead or alive?" may be that he is both. Fascinating. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

This just popped up on my watchlist. Honestly, sounds like this would make a good section on Philosophy of mathematics. I'd start there, and then if it gets really long consider spinning out a stand alone article. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft is well written, and seems, at first glance, to agree with WP:NPOV, but I am uncomfortable with is for several reasons that I give in a random order:

• The subject is a specific instance of the general question of the reality of abstract concepts. It is misleading to consider whether mathemaics is invented or discovered without asking the same question about other concepts (were the concepts of a cat, of a mammal, of democracy, etc. invented or discovered?)
• The dichotomy of the question is misleading: many productions of human mind are neither invented nor discovered: Does "discovred or invented?" applies to a novel, the Constitution of the United States, Einstein's relativity, etc.? It seems that "elaborated" is more appropriate for these examples, as well a for complex numbers as described in the linked article of Armand Borel.
• The question is a minor subquestion of the "nature of mathematics as human activity". This important philosophical question is, for the moment in Wikipedia, reduced to this simple phrase in Philosophy of mathematics. Similarly, I did not found in Wikipedia any general discussion of invention versus discovery. It seems silly to write about the subject of this thread without possibility to link to more general discussions.
• Philosophy of mathematics is a mess. Sometimes ago, I started to improve it by listing the main questions of the subject. I was tempted to remove section § Contemporary schools of thought, which is pure original synthesis, since nobody would recognize himself in any of these "schools of thought". I did not remove this section, since, at that time, the article was essentially reduced to this section.

So, I suggests to spend editors effort to improve Philosophy of mathematics, and, for the moment reduce the question of this thread to a single item or subitem in the lead of this article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: My response to this would be that the basis for determining whether a subject merits a standalone article is whether it meets WP:GNG. The content of the draft is obviously verifiable, reflects existing scholarship rather than being original analysis, and, I think, fairly represent the perspectives found in those sources. Its purpose is to document the existing discussion raised by the OP, not to undertake a novel philosophical inquiry, and there don't appear to be sources similarly debating whether mammals or novels or the Constitution were "invented or discovered".

The framing of the question is not something editors here invented. This is the terminology expressly used by mathematicians and philosophers who have examined the subject for decades. As noted in the article, Paul Ernest expressly titled his article "Is Mathematics Discovered or Invented?" in 1999, and a Google Books search returns hundreds of books asking exactly this question, or nearly identical questions, with exactly this dichotomy. If that dichotomy is potentially misleading, and there are sources supporting this concern, then that is itself a perspective that can be addressed within the article. The draft itself does not assert that mathematics must be one thing or the other; it is merely documenting the scholarly discussion of that question, which can include arguments that the distinction is inadequate or that the answer is that it's both. BD2412 T 12:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

There are a number of somewhat relevant articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, on scientific discovery, indispensability arguments, non-deductive methods, mathematical platonism, nominalism, naturalism, formalism, etc. –jacobolus (t) 16:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I would certainly welcome anyone interested in taking over the draft and improving it. BD2412 T 17:34, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

As the article seems to be in mainspace shape, I have gone ahead and moved it accordingly. I would be interested in some illustrations to pep things up, and am open to any improvements. BD2412 T 19:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Symplectic geometry vs Symplectic topology

When I clicked symplectic topology I went (redirected) to symplectic geometry, but it seems symplectic geometry, having began in 1939 or earlier, is an older sub-discipline of mathematics than symplectic topology, which Michèle Audin said began in 1965. Old talk page (from twenty years ago!): Talk:Symplectic topology#Symplectic topology is not the same as symplectic geometry. It would be nice if some expert in those matters could clarify the situation. Best. Amanita muscaria inzengae (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The messiness exists in the literature. At first glance, symplectic manifolds seem geometric, like a parallel-universe version of Riemannian manifolds. But Darboux's theorem says that they locally all look the same, meaning that what's interesting about them must be topological. But they are frequently studied using geometric methods. There are some shades of meaning here, but even our Symplectic geometry article says that "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often used interchangeably. Mgnbar (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mgnbar! I am trying to improve the article about Vladimir Arnold, and now I don't know how to conciliate that they are often used interchangeably with that he "co-founded" symplectic topology, and "the birth-date of symplectic topology was 27 October 1965" and so on. I think I'll leave that part as it is. Amanita muscaria inzengae (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in stiff differential equations?

A few weeks ago I listed here a few mathematics articles that I thought needed changing. This included stiff differential equation. At that stage I had only skimmed the article and the concerns were that the recent complete rewrite was self-publicity and was too technical. Since then I've read it more carefully and realised that the main claim made in the article is wrong. Somebody else pointed this out before I did. See the talk page. Another complication is that a new editor has drafted another version, so we now have three versions to choose between. The authors of both new versions seem to be very inexperienced Wikipedia users. If anyone is interested in this topic, please add a comment on the talk page. Paul Matthews (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed rename: Talk:List of mathematical discoveries by artificial intelligence#Requested move 9 October 2026

I believe this move discussion might be of interest to members of this project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Algebraic automata

Right now, there is no page for algebraic automata and the search leads to Krohn–Rhodes theory, which does not even mention Eilenberg and Wright . I do not have time to work on a new page, and discuss with the people regarding Draft Space and all. So if anyone feels like doing it, that would be great. My hidden agenda is to get a page for Jesse B. Wright because I am fascinated and amazed that he did his work despite being blind. I have no idea how he did. If anyone knows through folklore how he worked, that would be nice. I knew people who knew him, but back then I did know he was blind, so alas I did not ask. But he does deserve a page I think. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The title of such an article should be Algebraic automaton, since WP:MOS requires the singular in article titles except when there's some special reason to use the plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Category:Computation oracles has been nominated for discussion

Category:Computation oracles has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

This CfD requests expert input regarding terminology in theoretical computer science. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Math mangled on many pages

As far as I can tell latex display is completely broken this morning. There was an emergency PHP update yesterday. Anyone know more? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is the PHP notice Johnjbarton (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe resolved now? –jacobolus (t) 16:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes seems ok now Johnjbarton (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

See the "PHP2Shell" entry at Portal:Current_events. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)