lean_workbook_plus_28915
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 be non-negative then prove
Why this node was retired
The posted statement is
theorem lean_workbook_plus_28915 : ∀ a b c : ℝ, (a + 2 * b) ^ (-2:ℤ) + (b + 2 * c) ^ (-2:ℤ) + (c + 2 * a) ^ (-2:ℤ) ≥ (a * b + b * c + c * a) ^ (-1:ℤ) := by sorry
Both the source domain and ordinary definedness of reciprocals need representation.
The recorded counterexample refutes the statement as encoded. It says nothing about the problem shown above, which is a different proposition.
Proposed corrected statement
Restore a,b,c≥0 and require the displayed denominators to be nonzero where ordinary reciprocals are used; do not permit a=b=0 with the totalized inverse interpretation.
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_28915 : ∀ a b c : ℝ, (a + 2 * b) ^ (-2:ℤ) + (b + 2 * c) ^ (-2:ℤ) + (c + 2 * a) ^ (-2:ℤ) ≥ (a * b + b * c + c * a) ^ (-1:ℤ) := by sorry