claude-bot
04d827b3b3
Restructures the textbook pipeline around the distinction the body-derived dataset had been blurring: a bench should be actual unsolved problems, and a reusable premise library should only ever contain statements that have really been proven, the way Mathlib itself works. - library_candidates/goodman-1.6.jsonl (renamed from datasets/goodman-1.6.jsonl): the book's own Theorem/Proposition/Lemma/Corollary claims from the main text. Not bench targets -- premises waiting to be proven once via a real lean-bench run, then assembled into the reusable library by build_library.py (which already only keeps success:true entries with their checked proof, unchanged by this commit). - datasets/goodman-1.6-exercises.jsonl (new): the actual bench, sourced from the book's Exercises 1.6 block via two new scripts, textbook/extract_exercises.py (slices the Exercises block, lists its numbered items, drops a known false-positive class where a wrapped cross-reference like "...Proposition\n1.6.19." looks like a real exercise heading) and textbook/formalize_exercises.py (LLM step, given both the exercises and body text together since many exercises say "Prove Proposition N.N.N" instead of restating the claim). - Both formalize.py and formalize_exercises.py's validate() now enforce that every checklist item is covered by at least one output entry (included or explicitly excluded with a reason); formalize_exercises.py did not have this yet and a first real run silently dropped 7 of 15 checklist items with no trace before this was added. - All 12 model-produced exercise entries needed real fixes before commit, the same review pass applied to the body pilot: 3 exercises literally ask to prove an already-stated body claim (Exercise 1.6.1 -> Proposition 1.6.7, 1.6.2 -> Proposition 1.6.9, 1.6.7 -> Proposition 1.6.18, 1.6.9 -> Corollary 1.6.20, 1.6.15 -> Lemma 1.6.26) and now reuse that claim's own already-checked statement verbatim instead of an independently re-derived (and in one case strictly weaker) restatement; two entries (1.6.2, 1.6.11) had literal math prose like "I(m, n)" or "gcd(n1,...,nk)" leaked into the statement field, which is not valid Lean; several had untyped/ambiguous gcd or Prime usage fixed the same way the earlier body fixes were (Nat.Prime, IsCoprime, explicit casts, IsGreatest instead of max on a Set); and Exercise 1.6.12 part (a) turned out to be a discussion question whose unconditional-identity reading is actually false (6, 10, 15 are jointly coprime but not pairwise coprime), so it was moved to the excluded file with a reason instead of committed as a false theorem. - Definitions can now be real, compiled Lean, not only JSON metadata: Definition 1.6.22 (gcd of a list of integers, previously a null placeholder since no single Mathlib constant matches it) now has a real hand-written `def IsGCDOfList`, and textbook/build_definitions.py compiles any manifest's non-null lean_code entries into lib/Definitions.lean. goodman-1-6-24 (library) and the new goodman-1-6-ex-11-b/c, goodman-1-6-ex-12 (bench) all now use IsGCDOfList instead of repeating an inline existential. - textbook/README.md rewritten around the two-track design and records how this is meant to connect to lean-agent's eventual goal-directed proof search against the growing library (not yet built). - New tests for extract_exercises.py and build_definitions.py; full local suite still green (18/19, the one failure is the pre-existing, unrelated lean_agent import error in test_dataset.py). Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017vbLFFJiHSZqGZHEkjvG5x
63 lines
1.7 KiB
JSON
63 lines
1.7 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.1",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.1. Complete the following sketch of a proof of Proposition 1.6.7 using"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.2",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.2. Prove Proposition 1.6.9. Hint: For part (b), you have to show that"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.3",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.3. Suppose that a natural number p > 1 has the property that for all"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.4",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.4. For each of the following pairs of numbers m; n, compute"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.5",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.5. Show that for nonzero integers m and n, g:c:d:.m; n/ D"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.6",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.6. Show that for nonzero integers m and n, g:c:d:.m; n/ is the largest"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.7",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.7. Show that if p is a prime number and a is any nonzero integer, then"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.8",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.8. Suppose that a and b are relatively prime integers and that x is an"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.9",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.9. Show that if a prime number p divides a product a1 a2 : : : ar of"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.10",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.10."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.11",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.11. Let n1 ; : : : ; nk be nonzero integers. Let d D g:c:d.n1 ; : : : ; nk /,"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.12",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.12. Let n1 ; : : : ; nk be nonzero integers."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.13",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.13."
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.14",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.14. Show two nonzero integers are relatively prime if and only if they"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"number": "1.6.15",
|
|
"first_line": "1.6.15. Prove Lemma 1.6.26. You may use the uniqueness of the prime"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|