lean_workbook_plus_38893
Proved⚠️ Retired — specification defect
The Lean statement below does not encode the problem shown on this page, so its
Provedstatus carries no information about that problem. Do not import this node or use it as a dependency.
Prove that for ,
Why this node was retired
The posted statement is
theorem lean_workbook_plus_38893 (x y z : ℝ) (hx : 0 < x) (hy : 0 < y) (hz : 0 < z) : (x / (y + z))^(2/3) + (y / (x + z))^(2/3) + (z / (x + y))^(2/3) ≥ 3 * (1 / 4)^(1/3) := by sorry
Both stored exponents truncate to zero and the inequality is3≥3.
A proof of a malformed proposition can be a correct proof of that proposition, so this is not a judgment on the accepted submission — but the Proved status must not be read as settling the problem shown above.
Confirmed directly from the Lean text: the numeric-literal exponents carry no type ascription, so they elaborate at type ℕ where division truncates (^(1/3) → ^0; ^(2/3) → ^0).
Proposed corrected statement
Use explicit real exponents2/3 and1/3, with the real base1/4.
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_38893 (x y z : ℝ) (hx : 0 < x) (hy : 0 < y) (hz : 0 < z) : (x / (y + z))^(2/3) + (y / (x + z))^(2/3) + (z / (x + y))^(2/3) ≥ 3 * (1 / 4)^(1/3) := by sorry