first commit

proof-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Be concise but rigorous. Do not invent objections. Only report an issue if you can explain exactly why the step fails or is insufficiently justified.
+Act as a careful mathematical referee. Review the proof below for correctness, not for style.
+
+Your task:
+- Find actual logical gaps, unjustified inferences, hidden assumptions, undefined objects, notation conflicts, or uses of results stronger than what was stated.
+- Be skeptical and precise.
+- Do not give a general summary first.
+
+Instructions:
+1. Read the input line by line.
+2. List findings first, ordered by severity.
+3. For each finding, include:
+   - the exact step or sentence,
+   - why it does not follow,
+   - whether it is a fatal gap or a fixable omission,
+   - what additional argument, lemma, or hypothesis would fix it.
+4. Distinguish clearly among:
+   - Fatal gap
+   - Fixable omission
+   - Notation problem
+   - Exposition issue only
+5. Check specifically:
+   - whether every object is well-defined,
+   - whether quantifiers are correct,
+   - whether induction hypotheses are applied legally,
+   - whether extremal choices are justified,
+   - whether cited theorems are used in a form strong enough for the conclusion,
+   - whether any notation changes meaning during the proof.
+6. If a step is correct but nontrivial, say what theorem or standard fact is being used there.
+7. If you do not find a logical gap, say exactly:
+   “I do not see a logical gap.”
+   Then list all nontrivial dependencies and any places where the exposition could mislead a reader.
+
+Output format:
+- Findings
+- Nontrivial dependencies
+- Minor issues
+- Verdict
+
+Input:
+[paste proof]