Problem detail · source-aware

Unit-Area Triangles in Planar Sets of Large Measure

resolvedconfidence 70%

VibeMathed reports this item as resolved. VibeMath preserves that report as a source assertion and has not independently authored a plain-language mathematical explanation.

Precise statement

How large can a measurable $A \subseteq [0,R]^2$ be while avoiding the vertices of upward-oriented axis-aligned right triangles of area $1/2$? At most $O_c(R^2/(\log R)^c)$, with a matching-shaped lower bound construction.

The source statement is reproduced for indexing with attribution. Mathematical correctness requires domain-expert or mechanical review. VibeMath has not independently audited statement fidelity, correctness, priority, or novelty.

What AI did

ChatGPT 5.4 Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro

The AI usage declaration names two distinct contributions: ChatGPT 5.4 Pro constructed the example giving the lower bound, and was also used to clarify a cryptic remark of Graham and reconstruct its intended proof. Gemini drew a figure. The authors state the ideas, proofs and writing are theirs.

Provider: OpenAI / Google · Prompt public: unknown · Independence: unknown

Verification boundary

unreviewed

arXiv preprint; not yet peer-reviewed.

Correctness: unknown · statement fidelity: unaudited · peer review: none

Timeline

  1. arXiv:2605.30033 - On hyperbolic corners and unit-area triangles in planar sets of large measure

    VibeMathed reports this item as resolved. VibeMath preserves that report as a source assertion and has not independently authored a plain-language mathematical explanation.

Known method families

argument (source-reported)

Source-reported tools: argument.

Independent: unknown · difference confidence: 0

What remains uncertain

VibeMath has not independently audited the mathematical statement, proof, or novelty claim.

  • VibeMath has not independently verified the mathematical claim.
  • AI-attempt independence and training-data exposure are unknown unless explicitly documented.
  • VibeMath has not independently audited the mathematical statement, proof, or novelty claim.