Correctness, Artificial Intelligence, and the Epistemic Value of Mathematical Proof

James Owen Weatherall, Jesse Wolfson
2/12/2026
math.HOcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

We argue that it is neither necessary nor sufficient for a mathematical proof to have epistemic value that it be "correct", in the sense of formalizable in a formal proof system. We then present a view on the relationship between mathematics and logic that clarifies the role of formal correctness in mathematics. Finally, we discuss the significance of these arguments for recent discussions about automated theorem provers and applications of AI to mathematics.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Formal Mathematical Reasoning: A New Frontier in AI

85% match2024

Artifical intelligence and inherent mathematical difficulty

83% match2024

Apriori Knowledge in an Era of Computational Opacity: The Role of AI in Mathematical Discovery

81% match2024

FormalMATH: Benchmarking Formal Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models

81% match1 repo752025

Mathematical Formalized Problem Solving and Theorem Proving in Different Fields in Lean 4

80% match2024

Thinking Machines: Mathematical Reasoning in the Age of LLMs

79% match2025

Cite this paper

@article{weatherall2026correctness,
  title  = {Correctness, Artificial Intelligence, and the Epistemic Value of Mathematical Proof},
  author = {James Owen Weatherall and Jesse Wolfson},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2602.12463},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12463v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2602.12463.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2602.12463)

Discussion