I've been trying to prove @ericweinstein GU in Lean using AI, but I'm essentially a blind mand in a gladiator coliseum, as I'm no mathematician. As far as I've achieved, GU base structure is consistent a provable, however there's some missing gaps that the math library does not have, that the agent claims are needed to go deeper and complete GU proving:
- Spin cover image = SO₀(7,7): needs the Cartan–Dieudonné theorem plus facts about connected components of matrix groups.
- Submanifold step: needs general "the solution set of nice equations is smooth" machinery for these spaces.
- Global spin lift (w₂): needs characteristic classes, which are basically absent from Mathlib.
- Identifying the Pati–Salam subgroups with Spin(6) and Spin(4): needs abstract spin groups as their own objects, plus isomorphism theory.
Again I emphasize I'm no mathematician, so I'm relaying on this overconfident abstraction, I just wanted to understand where would this experiment lead to. But I wonder it it going on a good path, or should stop wasting tokens?
all 36 shipped maps of saga rage of the vikings (1999) now replay 1:1 with the original game in our clean room C port, every entity checked tick by tick against the original binary for 1600 ticks
the clip is the port's own renderer: two vikings board a knorr, it rows out, sails across, docks and they land. same frames the original draws
clean-room port of saga: rage of the vikings (1999). first frames out of our own simulation, drawn with the original's projection code, ported and judged by running the 1999 exe in an emulator. ground is still flat colour and the vikings are dots, that's next. 4 of 36 maps bit-exact for 200 ticks so far


