Skip to content

Solve IMO 2026 Problem 2 (OM=ON circumcenter geometry) with rigorous proof + LaTeX + solution writeup#23

Open
tmoon wants to merge 1 commit into
single-approachfrom
autofyn/you-are-a-world-9dbab7
Open

Solve IMO 2026 Problem 2 (OM=ON circumcenter geometry) with rigorous proof + LaTeX + solution writeup#23
tmoon wants to merge 1 commit into
single-approachfrom
autofyn/you-are-a-world-9dbab7

Conversation

@tmoon

@tmoon tmoon commented Jul 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
  • Round 1: Solved imo-2026-02 (IMO 2026 P2), full rigorous proof approved
Run State

Goal

Solve imo-2026-02 (user-specified target problem, IMO 2026 Problem 2, geometry,
difficulty_rating 8, hard). Statement: Let ABC be a triangle, M and N midpoints
of AB, AC. K inside triangle BMC, L inside triangle BNC, with K inside angle
LBA, L inside angle ACK, angle KBA = angle ACL, angle LBK = angle LNC,
angle LCK = angle BMK. O = circumcenter of AKL. Prove OM = ON.

Eval: does results/imo-2026-02.md exist with ## Status = solved, judged by
proof-reviewer's adversarial review (rigor rules in CLAUDE.md: no hand-waving,
every case settled, every theorem named/cited).
Eval command: grep -A1 '^## Status$' results/imo-2026-02.md
Baseline: no file exists (0% solved).
Target: solved with a complete rigorous proof, or failing that, best possible
partial with a clearly recorded key lemma/reduction for future rounds.
Constraint: general repo goal (maximize hard problems solved) is secondary this
run — user explicitly asked for this one problem, so all rounds focus on it
until solved or clearly stuck after 2+ rounds of no progress (per CLAUDE.md
"don't get stuck" rule), at which point ask user or note the stall.

Goal Updates

  • [2026-07-15] User task: "solve the problem imo-2026-02" (full statement
    given in task). Single-problem focus, not the general 39-hard-problem sweep.
  • [2026-07-15] User (mid-round): once solved, push to a branch named
    sonnet5-imo2026-02 (pattern modelname-imo<year>-<problem no>) with an
    accompanying LaTeX file and a separate nicely-formatted Markdown file
    (solution + commentary), in ADDITION to results/imo-2026-02.md. NOTE:
    orchestrator constraints say never to commit/push/branch myself — the
    harness auto-commits/pushes each round via end_round/end_session and builds
    the PR from round summaries. Plan: produce the extra .tex and commentary
    .md files as normal repo artifacts (so the harness's auto-commit picks
    them up) but do NOT attempt to create a differently-named branch or push
    manually — flag this tension to the user explicitly when reporting done,
    since a custom branch name / manual push falls outside the harness flow.

Eval History

  • Round 1: imo-2026-02 → SOLVED. Full pipeline: math-explorer →
    proof-outliner (2 revisions, caught+fixed a spurious-branch flaw) →
    outline-reviewer (2 passes: CHANGES REQUESTED then APPROVE w/ 4 mandatory
    follow-through items) → proof-builder (3 attempts) → proof-reviewer
    (3 adversarial passes: CHANGES REQUESTED, CHANGES REQUESTED, APPROVE).
    Final proof: power-of-a-point reduction (OM=ON ⟺ (O-A)·(C-B)=(AC²-AB²)/4)
    • trig-Ceva parametrization of K,L + directed-angle branch-selection lemma
      (containment ⟹ unique root in a forced range, proved via a genuine
      two-stage-perspectivity monotonicity argument, not numerics) + Gröbner
      ideal-membership certificate for the final algebraic identity + a
      continuity/finitely-many-zeros patch across a measure-zero degenerate
      locus. proof-reviewer APPROVE = solved, verdict final. Eval command result:
      results/imo-2026-02.md has ## Status = solved. Target achieved.
      BREAKTHROUGH: this is IMO P2/hard difficulty, closed in one round via
      iterative adversarial review catching 2 real overclaims before approval.

Rules

  • ALWAYS run at least one full adversarial proof-reviewer pass after every
    proof-builder attempt on a hard geometry problem with an algebraic-closure
    step (e.g. resultant/Gröbner elimination) — twice in this problem's history
    the builder overclaimed "no derivation can exist" or "continuity, done"
    based on an unconstrained or unexhibited argument, and the reviewer caught
    it by independently re-deriving the polynomial/analytic objects rather than
    trusting the builder's summary (round 1).
  • ALWAYS require the proof-reviewer to independently reproduce/re-run any
    claimed computer-algebra certificate (sympy resultant/Gröbner scripts)
    rather than trusting "confirmed" in the builder's report — this caught two
    real gaps on imo-2026-02 (round 1).
  • ALWAYS have the outline-reviewer check angle/containment hypotheses are
    actually load-bearing (not silently dropped) before approving a synthetic
    geometry outline that uses unsigned-angle trig-Ceva systems — unsigned
    systems can admit spurious branches violating the hypotheses (round 1,
    imo-2026-02, caught on first outline-review pass).
  • NEVER let a "dense set + continuity ⟹ identity everywhere" argument pass
    review unless D (the excluded degenerate locus) is concretely exhibited and
    proven non-degenerate/finite — "asserted density" is a recurring failure
    mode on algebraic-geometry closures (round 1).

State

Done

  • Round 1 setup: pip installed numpy/scipy/sympy. Confirmed problems.jsonl
    entry for imo-2026-02 (geometry, hard, difficulty_rating 8).
  • Round 1: imo-2026-02 fully SOLVED and adversarially approved. Deliverables:
    results/imo-2026-02.md (working file + full proof, Status: solved),
    results/imo-2026-02.tex (compiles cleanly with tectonic, verified),
    results/imo-2026-02-solution.md (polished write-up + commentary).
  • User mid-round request (see Goal Updates): push to branch
    sonnet5-imo2026-02 with the .tex + solution .md — NOT done by the
    orchestrator (git write ops are out of scope per orchestrator constraints;
    harness auto-commits/pushes). Flagged to user in round-end message.

Broken

(none — imo-2026-02 closed out this round)

Next

  • User's task was scoped to this single problem (imo-2026-02), now solved.
    If asked to continue on the general 39-hard-problem benchmark, next round
    should dispatch math-explorer on 1-3 fresh hard problem ids from
    problems.jsonl (grep difficulty_level=hard) in parallel, per the
    repo-wide CLAUDE.md workflow. Otherwise, awaiting user direction —
    particularly on the branch/push request, which needs harness-level
    handling (custom branch name, extra files) rather than orchestrator action.

Branch: autofyn/you-are-a-world-9dbab7 · Run: 6b428cbe-6dc6-483f-acc8-20ec06483008 · Generated by AutoFyn

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant