lean_workbook_plus_18802
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.
Prove that we have .
Why this node was retired
The posted statement is
theorem lean_workbook_plus_18802 (x y z : ℝ) (hx : 0 < x) (hy : 0 < y) (hz : 0 < z) : ((x + y + z) ^ (1 / 2) : ℝ) > (x ^ (1 / 3) + y ^ (1 / 3) + z ^ (1 / 3)) ^ (1 / 3) := by sorry
Fractional-looking exponents elaborate as natural-number quotients, changing roots to powers0 (or another integer). Both nested radical expressions were replaced by different sums.
The recorded counterexample refutes the statement as encoded. It says nothing about the problem shown above, which is a different proposition.
Confirmed directly from the Lean text: the numeric-literal exponents carry no type ascription, so they elaborate at type ℕ where division truncates (^ (1 / 2) → ^0; ^ (1 / 3) → ^0).
Proposed corrected statement
For positive x,y,z compare √(∛x+∛y+∛z) with∛(√x+√y+√z), using genuine nested roots as in the source.
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_18802 (x y z : ℝ) (hx : 0 < x) (hy : 0 < y) (hz : 0 < z) : ((x + y + z) ^ (1 / 2) : ℝ) > (x ^ (1 / 3) + y ^ (1 / 3) + z ^ (1 / 3)) ^ (1 / 3) := by sorry