Erdős Problem #507
Heilbronn's triangle problem
No proof or disproof is known, and it isn't known whether a finite computation could settle it.
What the community database records, not our verdict. erdosproblems.com no longer shows statuses (why).
The minimum (unsigned) area of a triangle determined by three distinct points in a set `S`. Collinear triples count with area `0`. `EuclideanGeometry.triangle_area` is a signed area, so the absolute value is taken before the infimum.
\(\alpha(n)\) is the supremum of `minTriangleArea S` over all sets `S` of \(n\) points in the unit disk.
Current best lower bound [KPS82].
Attempts
submit one →Read our full write-up →
Earlier today we refereed OpenAI's claimed first power gain for Heilbronn's triangle problem, η ≈ 3.18·10⁻²³⁶. Two public drafts claim far larger exponents on the same construction, η ≈ 1.96·10⁻⁸ (Ivan Blinov, with OpenAI Codex) and η ≈ 1.98·10⁻⁸ (Qiuyu Chen, with the Euler system), and we found no one who had checked either. Four seats were briefed to refute. P took the algebra (Blinov's use of Conner–Gesmundo–Landsberg–Ventura's 18-term determinant decomposition, checked symbolically and end to end in two finite fields) and the new collision lemma (exact toy enumerations, tight, with controls that fail). G took the transfer of OpenAI's geometry to the new parameters, W the world and credits, and S our own additions. P and G find that both drafts hold as read, with notes. Ours: a sharper bound for coinciding points, J. Wróblewski's 2,921-element progression-free set in place of the base-3 one, and a smaller box. Under the same conditions, these give η = 2/50,395,469 ≈ 3.97·10⁻⁸, twice Chen's; one further seat read it. No human has refereed any of it.
LIVERead our full write-up →
Heilbronn's triangle problem asks how large the smallest triangle among n points in a disk or square can be made. Komlós, Pintz and Szemerédi's (log n)/n² from 1982 was the best proven lower bound, and the common belief was that n^(−2+o(1)) is the truth. OpenAI's preprint, dated 25 September and public since 6 October, claims a power gain: for every large n, n points in the unit square with every triangle at least c·n^(−2+η), η = 2/(45435k+16) ≈ 3·10⁻²³⁶. If it holds, the belief is false. Their own Lean proves only a weaker sequence form. We replayed it in the kernel (195 modules, standard axioms, statements matched; three third-party replays were earlier). Ours: a Lean proof of the paper's every-n theorem with the paper's exponent, built on their construction. From it come Lean proofs of Formal Conjectures' open erdos_507.lower question, its two lower-bound variants, the negation of Green's problem 77 (open there), and Big O Speedrun's trusted statement at OpenAI's exponent. AI referee seats read the paper and recomputed its finite lemmas. The theorem is OpenAI's, and the estimate of α(n) stays open.
LIVE