I only know of this because my bot found the paper and burnt a week of tokens checking the math of the 40 some variations. That bot runs in Sol 4.6 Ultra with a Sol 4.6 Pro layer. I then had Fable 5 check to be sure after my bot got report flagged when it commented on her Facebook post where despite AI use, which my bot caught she left in Claude credit in Rev 17, the author gleefully said how "humans win." Fable 5 Max independently came to the same findings and gently asked me not to dunk, so no flourish.
The math is beyond me. The revision history alone shows a clear pattern.
> The gap has two independent consequences, each sufficient to invalidate the claimed disproof. The first is structural.
Then the classic coding agents negation of earlier evidence, instaed of just updating to use new references, they mention that they changed old to new:
> The publicly released monolithic file ConnesRigidity.lean (37,000+ lines) does not use the names CocycleExtension, ZeroCocycle, or TwistedCocycle that appeared in the earlier modular source files (CocycleExtension.lean, ICC.lean, CrossedClosure.lean). However, the identical mathematical construction is present under different names. The following table gives the correspondence, with line numbers in the published file.
> This is the same zero-cocycle / twisted-cocycle structure identified in the earlier modular source files, confirming that the structural analysis of this note applies to the published code
And some other Claud-y stuff:
> Why both paths are closed. A successful defence would have to close both paths simultaneously
> This case illustrates a failure mode that is becoming increasingly well documented in the literature on AI-assisted formal mathematics: the gap between what a formal proof verifies and what it means. The Lean kernel certifies that a proof term inhabits a given type; it does not certify that the type faithfully encodes the intended mathematical claim. As Tao has emphasised
And afterwards I cross-verified with Pangram 4 which I trust, it marked the preamble/starting stuff as 100% AI-generated.
Also, Claude Opus 4.6 in a fresh incognito copy says she killed the counterexamples and has repeated four times that it believes she actually proved Connes. Grok says they'd rather bet on Jenny and Opus 4.6 than Astra right now. I think that's shaping up for Nielsen over OpenAI.
Here's my preprint response to this nonsense. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1216uYJj_B17A0oxd8iW3hU3YmHV...