math-proof: solo

You solve the problem yourself, in this session. There are no sub-agents and no rounds: just you, a notes

file and, at the end, proof.md.

Arguments. The invoking message reads: $ARGUMENTS

It gives the problem and, optionally, the run directory. Read it this way. A token of the form DIR=path at its

start sets the run directory (the path quoted if it contains spaces); remove it. Any other leading token of the

form NAME=value, where NAME is a word of two or more capital letters and underscores and value is a whole number,

is a setting this skill does not have: tell the user in one sentence that /math-proof:solo takes only DIR=path

before the problem (round and wave settings belong to /math-proof:siege), and that if the token is part of the

problem itself the problem can be given as a file path instead, and stop. If what remains is a single line

that, taken as a whole — surrounding whitespace and one pair of enclosing quotation marks removed,

backslash-escaped spaces read as spaces — is the path of an existing file (it may contain spaces; check with

Read or Glob, not the shell), that file is the problem file; if no such file exists and what remains can only

be a file path — a single line ending in .md, .txt or .tex, or a single token (no spaces once the quotes are

removed) containing "/" or "\" — tell the user in one sentence that no file exists at the absolute path you

looked for (give it) and that the problem can instead be given in full as text after the command, and stop;

otherwise everything that remains, to the end of the message, IS the problem statement, verbatim — mathematics,

line breaks and all ("n=3", "N=pq" and "AB=AC" are mathematics, not settings). The run directory DIR defaults to

./math-proof-solo under the current directory; use DIR's absolute path everywhere below. If the message holds

neither a readable problem file nor any problem text, say so in one sentence — with the usage,

/math-proof:solo <problem statement, or the path of a file holding it> — and stop.

Setup. The run's files are DIR/problem.md (the problem), DIR/notes.md (your notes) and DIR/proof.md (the

deliverable). Create DIR with mkdir -p. If DIR/notes.md already exists, this problem was already being

worked on in DIR: check that DIR/problem.md is the same problem you were given (compare the text, ignoring

differences in whitespace and line endings; for a file, cmp) — if it differs, say in one sentence that DIR

holds work on a different problem and that DIR=<another directory> selects a fresh one, and stop; if it is

the same, read DIR/notes.md, and DIR/proof.md if it exists. If they record the solution as complete (proof.md

written and nothing in the notes still to do), the earlier session finished: say where proof.md is and that

DIR=<another directory> starts a fresh attempt, and stop. Otherwise the earlier session ended before it

finished, and whatever reasoning it had not written down is lost: continue from the last point recorded there

rather than starting over. If DIR/notes.md does not exist yet, put the problem at DIR/problem.md: if it came as

a file, copy that file there byte for byte with cp; if it came as text in the invoking message, Write

exactly that text (nothing added, removed or reworded). Then Read DIR/problem.md in full; it is the authoritative text of the problem. Use the shell for

nothing but that mkdir, cp and cmp.

The task. Solve the problem stated in DIR/problem.md; the deliverable is DIR/proof.md. After reasoning,

write your answer. This task runs as a conversation that can span many messages, each with a bounded output

allowance; a message that is cut off is normally followed by a request to continue, and only what you have

WRITTEN (not unwritten reasoning) is guaranteed to carry into the next message. So write your work product

out as you go, in a notes file, DIR/notes.md: whenever you settle something — a lemma and its proof, a

reduction, a dead end and why it is dead, the precise statement you are now attempting — write it down before

reasoning further. A partial answer is much more useful than none. Writing to the notes is not finishing —

keep going after each write. Important: each message's output allowance also covers your private reasoning,

and it is far smaller than a hard problem deserves — a message spent entirely on reasoning, with nothing

written, gets cut off, and unwritten reasoning should be assumed lost. So do not try to finish in one

message. Work in stages: early in EVERY message, before any long derivation, write your current plan and the

precise statement you are attempting to DIR/notes.md; then reason toward the next concrete intermediate

result, append it to the notes as soon as you have it, and continue. Many short written steps beat one long

unwritten one. If a message of yours is cut off, re-read DIR/notes.md and continue from the last thing

written there; never start over. You have no web access and no code execution; this is a pure reasoning

task. When the problem is resolved, or you have taken it as far as you can, write your complete solution to

DIR/proof.md. proof.md is read on its own by a referee who cannot open any other file (not your notes

either), so it must be self-contained: every argument the solution relies on is written out in full there.

Work unattended: there is no one to answer questions, so never stop to ask.

When DIR/proof.md is written, reply briefly: where proof.md is, and whether it resolves the problem

completely or, in proof.md's own words, what it leaves open.