Six standard deviations suffice (Spencer's theorem)
Six standard deviations suffice (Spencer, 1985) For every and every family of subsets of , there is a colouring such that for every .
▸Motivation
Six standard deviations suffice (Spencer, 1985) For every and every family of subsets of , there is a colouring such that for every .
Recorded upstream as solved in the literature, but no Lean proof exists here yet. It is listed as open because nothing on this site is marked solved without a proof the kernel accepts — a known result needing formalization is a tractable task, and a good place to start.
Adapted from formal-conjectures, Wikipedia/SixStandardDeviations.lean. Catalogued at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrepancy_of_hypergraphs#General_hypergraphs.
▸Lean API
import Mathlib
namespace Conjectura.WP0034
/-- **Six standard deviations suffice** (Spencer, 1985) For every $n$ and every family of $n$ subsets $S_1, \dots, S_n$ of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, there is a colouring $\chi : \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{-1, +1\}$ such that $\left|\sum_{j \in S_i} \chi(j)\right| \le 6\sqrt{n}$ for every $i$. -/
def goal : Prop :=
∀ (n : ℕ) (S : Fin n → Finset (Fin n)),
∃ χ : Fin n → ℝ, (∀ j, χ j = 1 ∨ χ j = -1) ∧
∀ i, |∑ j ∈ S i, χ j| ≤ 6 * Real.sqrt n
end Conjectura.WP0034▸Definition2
▸Related work2
- Six standard deviations suffice (Spencer's theorem)—
The catalogue entry, with references and status.
- formal-conjecturesThe Formal Conjectures Authors (Google DeepMind) · 2025
Source of the Lean formalization adapted here.
▸For your AI
I am proving a theorem in Lean 4 and submitting it to Conjectura.
## Problem WP0034 — Six standard deviations suffice (Spencer's theorem)
**Six standard deviations suffice** (Spencer, 1985) For every $n$ and every family of $n$ subsets $S_1, \dots, S_n$ of $\{1, \dots, n\}$, there is a colouring $\chi : \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{-1, +1\}$ such that $\left|\sum_{j \in S_i} \chi(j)\right| \le 6\sqrt{n}$ for every $i$.
## Environment (fixed — do not assume anything newer)
- Lean toolchain: `leanprover/lean4:v4.33.0-rc1`
- Mathlib: `v4.33.0-rc1`
If a lemma you want does not exist in that Mathlib, prove it inline instead of
importing something newer.
## The exact statement I must prove
```lean
theorem solution : Conjectura.WP0034.goal := by
sorry
```
## The file I submit
```lean
import Conjectura.Problems.WP0034.Statement
namespace Submission
theorem solution : Conjectura.WP0034.goal := by
sorry
end Submission
```
## The Lean definitions of every term in this problem
These are the actual definitions your proof will be checked against. Do not
substitute your own version of any of them.
### Finset
structure
```lean
Finset
```
Defined in Mathlib.
### sqrt
def
```lean
Real.sqrt
```
Defined in Mathlib.
## Rules — submissions violating these are rejected automatically
1. **Do not change the name or type of `solution`.** It must satisfy the
statement above exactly.
2. **Do not redefine or shadow anything from the problem's Statement module.**
Declaring your own `goal`, or redefining a name it depends on, produces a
proof of a *different* statement and is rejected. This is the single most
common rejection.
3. **No `sorry`** anywhere, including in helper lemmas. It surfaces as the
axiom `sorryAx` and is detected transitively through imports.
4. **No `native_decide`** — it surfaces as `Lean.ofReduceBool` and is not
accepted, because it trusts compiled code rather than the kernel.
5. Only these axioms are permitted: `propext`, `Classical.choice`,
`Quot.sound`.
6. Follow Mathlib style: hypotheses left of the colon, explicit types,
`snake_case` theorem names, `UpperCamelCase` types.
## What I want from you
Here is my argument in informal mathematics:
> [PASTE YOUR PROOF SKETCH HERE]
Turn it into Lean 4 that compiles under the environment above and satisfies the
statement exactly. Where you are unsure a lemma exists in this Mathlib version,
say so explicitly rather than guessing a name.Submissions are not open yet
Conjectura is in beta. You can read every statement, every definition and the Lean behind them, and download the exact files the checker uses — but proofs are not being accepted yet.
The reason is a deliberate order of operations. Accepting a proof means running a stranger’s code and standing behind a verdict, and no statement here yet carries a researcher’s name. A machine-checked answer to a question nobody has vouched for is worth very little, so the vouching comes first.
The English write-ups are also switched off during the beta. Nothing on this page is generated by a model.
Discussion
- Nothing yet.
Sign in to take part.