A lean proof and a paper proof can diverge. But the statements have to correspond. I think that is what "mistranslated" means here.
replyBut the "mistranslation" is of the procedure that arrives at the final statement. The final statement, the thing that the lean code proves, itself has been well vetted by humans. So the lean proof correctly proves the NS blowup, it's just that the natural language paper has some mistakes and doesn't exactly follow the route the lean proof takes.
replyThe thing is, you often see people saying, ‘They have a Lean cert, so it has to be correct, even if I don't understand it.’
replyThey are right? The lean proof is correct. It's the natural language proof that potentially isn't (or at least it isn't identically structured to the lean proof)
reply