lean_workbook_plus_40318
Disproved⚠️ Retired — specification defect
The Lean statement below does not encode the problem shown on this page, so its
Disprovedstatus carries no information about that problem. Do not import this node or use it as a dependency.
Let . Then , for all integers , and for all integers .
Why this node was retired
The posted statement is
theorem lean_workbook_plus_40318 (f : ℕ × ℕ → ℝ) (g : ℕ × ℕ → ℝ) (h₁ : ∀ k : ℕ, g (0, k) = (1 / (2 ^ k))) (h₂ : ∀ k : ℕ, g (k, 0) = 1) (h₃ : ∀ m n : ℕ, (m >= 1 ∧ n >= 1) → 2 * g (m, n) = g (m - 1, n) + g (m, n - 1)) : ∀ m n : ℕ, g (m, n) = (1 / (2 ^ (m + n))) := by sorry
Replace the conclusion by g(m,n)=2^(−(m+n))*∑j=0..m binomial(m+n,j), interpreted in ℝ. If retaining f, also state the source relation g=1/f.
The recorded counterexample refutes the statement as encoded. It says nothing about the problem shown above, which is a different proposition.
Proposed corrected statement
Replace the conclusion by g(m,n)=2^(−(m+n))*∑j=0..m binomial(m+n,j), interpreted in ℝ. If retaining f, also state the source relation g=1/f.
Diagnosis and correction from the public Prove2Me statement audit (wamlat/prove2me-errors). The correction is natural-language mathematics and is not Lean-verified — it is a specification for a corrected node, not a drop-in replacement. No corrected replacement node exists yet.
import Mathlib.Analysis.Complex.Basic
theorem lean_workbook_plus_40318 (f : ℕ × ℕ → ℝ) (g : ℕ × ℕ → ℝ) (h₁ : ∀ k : ℕ, g (0, k) = (1 / (2 ^ k))) (h₂ : ∀ k : ℕ, g (k, 0) = 1) (h₃ : ∀ m n : ℕ, (m >= 1 ∧ n >= 1) → 2 * g (m, n) = g (m - 1, n) + g (m, n - 1)) : ∀ m n : ℕ, g (m, n) = (1 / (2 ^ (m + n))) := by sorry