Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Reviews of the Problem 1221 reconstructions
clst25_theorem_2_reconstruction_review: The statement and its locators are faithful to the source, but the derivation applies Theorem 3 at R = 1, an instance the page itself records as false, for every r below 2 + c log 2, which always includes r = 2; one required correction, one suggested correction and three notes.
dber49_inequality_3_3_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged review of the Section 3 reconstruction: source fidelity faithful with corrections (one required correction, the silently corrected misprint in the printed (3.1)); the reconstructed argument is sound.
dber49_inequality_4_3_reconstruction_review: Source fidelity faithful with corrections; the reconstructed argument is sound once the justification of its span step is reworded for coincident points. One required correction, one suggested, two notes.
dber49_inequality_5_7_reconstruction_review: Fresh-context refutation review of the (5.1) and (5.7) reconstruction: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with zero required corrections, one suggested labeling change and four notes.
grade: Distinct grade of the sixteen focused reviews of the Problem 1221 reconstruction pages as they stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: fifteen reports pass and one is void for filing its checklist against the shared list instead of the ten governing items; twelve corrections are accepted, one required finding is rejected, and no tier is assigned.
grade_2: Distinct grade of the second independent focused review of the Lemma 4.2 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z, filed after the first review was voided on form: the second report passes, its one suggested finding is the already-applied correction C6, its two notes are optional, no new correction is accepted, and no tier is assigned.
ko26a_lemma_3_1_reconstruction_review: Faithful with corrections and sound as reconstructed: the statement, locators and both deductions of Lemma 3.1 match the source, with zero required corrections, three suggested labeling corrections and one note.
ko26a_proposition_4_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged independent review of the Proposition 4.1 reconstruction: the statement is faithful to the source at the stated pages and the reconstructed argument is sound; no required corrections, three suggested precision edits and two notes.
ko26a_theorem_1_1_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged review of the Theorem 1.1 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the epoch iteration sound, with zero required corrections, one suggested labeling and four notes.
ko26b_lemma_2_1_reconstruction_review: The reconstruction of Lemma 2.1 is faithful to the source at pp. 4--5 and its argument as reconstructed is sound; zero required corrections, with one suggested clarification and three notes.
ko26b_lemma_4_2_reconstruction_review: Source fidelity faithful with corrections, one required (the derivation of Theorem 4.1 sits on p. 8 of the source, not p. 7), and the reconstructed argument sound given the imported Theorem 4.1; four further findings are suggestions or notes.
ko26b_lemma_4_2_reconstruction_review_2: Refutation-charge review of the Lemma 4.2 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with no required corrections, one suggested locator fix and two notes.
ko26b_lemma_6_1_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 6.1 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with no required corrections, three suggested clarifications and two notes.
ko26b_lemma_6_2_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 6.2 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with no required corrections; two suggested labeling and linking fixes and two notes are filed.
ko26b_lemma_6_3_reconstruction_review: Focused refutation review of the Lemma 6.3 reconstruction: source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound, with zero required corrections, one suggested clarification and two notes.
ko26b_lemma_7_2_reconstruction_review: Refutation-charged review of the Lemma 7.2 reconstruction as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z: the statement and proof are faithful to the source and the reconstructed argument is sound, with zero required corrections, two suggested labels and three notes.
ko26b_proposition_3_1_reconstruction_review: Source fidelity faithful and the reconstructed argument sound; no required corrections, two suggested corrections (the summary's paraphrase of hypothesis (2.1) and the detour through Lemma 2.1's proof in the final comparison) and one note.
ko26b_proposition_6_4_reconstruction_review: Focused independent review of the Proposition 6.4 reconstruction: source fidelity faithful with corrections and the argument sound, with one required correction (the sentence justifying the time threshold's independence from D) and one suggested.
ko26b_theorem_1_1_reconstruction_review: Focused independent review of the reconstruction of Theorem 1.1 of the 2026 resolution preprint: source fidelity faithful with corrections, and the reconstructed closing arguments sound relative to their two imported theorems; one required correction, a misquoted fixed-r bound in the readings section.
The records here are the seventeen independent focused reviews of the reconstruction pages of the consecutive-gap folder, one per page and a second for one page, each a fresh-context refutation-charged review of its page as it stood on 2026-09-28T05:03:27Z, and one distinct grade of those reviews by a grader distinct from the author and the reviewers. The grade records which reports pass, the accepted corrections C1--C12, the rejected and downgraded findings, and the per-page verdicts. A second independent focused review of the Lemma 4.2 reconstruction, ko26b_lemma_4_2_reconstruction_review_2, filed after the first review of that page was voided on form, is graded in the second grade, which accepts no new correction. These are focused reviews of author-recorded reconstructions: they carry no tier, assign none, and change no status; the problem stays open.