drive by proof on A014701

2026-08-23 [home]

this page contains generated content delineated using this shadowing style.

motivations

two of my most persistent obsessions remain maths and programming; one finds the former often flowing into the latter, but only in the recent century or so have we seen the latter flowing into the former.

naturally, formal methods and "auto-research" are even more recent developments in this space. while my disdain for large language models largely lives on, there is virtually no sound argument in denying the utility that these tools create.

the conjecture

on 15 May 2025, Jean-Marc Rebert wrote a comment on A014701 which conjectures:

Conjecture: a(n+1) is the minimal number of steps to
go from 0 to n, by choosing before each step, after
the first step, whether to keep the same step length
or double it. The initial step length is 1.

i came across this entry while doing some basic conjecture mining (tooling in my harness) over OEIS. the goal was to find open conjectures that an LLM could formalize into theorems. my primary motivation was to get familiar with the pitfalls and where the human-in-the-loop is required. it later evolved into a cohesive workflow that i am still refining... a topic for a future post.

A014701 counts the number of multiplications in the Chandah-sutra method, a form of exponentiation by squaring.

for positive m, the formula recorded on the entry is

A014701(m) = floor(log m) + popCount(m) - 1
           = bitLength(m) + popCount(m) - 2

where log is the binary logarithm.

this distinction matters: bit length alone is A070939, while popCount is A000120. neither is A014701 outright.

A056792 is numerically related by A014701(m) = A056792(m) - 1, with one key difference: it minimizes the steps that either add one to the current position or double the current position.

Rebert's walk always advances and chooses whether to keep or double the step length. the numerical identity is useful context, but it is not a rigorous proof that the two walks are one in the same.

the model and theorem

in StepWalk.lean, Reach k p s states: after k steps the walk is at position p and its current step length is s.

this captures Rebert's formulation directly:

Reach 1 1 1

/- keep -/
Reach k p s → Reach (k + 1) (p + s) s

/- double -/
Reach k p s → Reach (k + 1) (p + 2 * s) (2 * s)

Reachable n k means that some current step length s makes Reach k n s true. the theorem signature is

∀ (n k : ℕ), 1 ≤ n → (IsLeast {j | Reachable n j} k ↔ k + 2 = (n + 1).bits.length + popCount (n + 1))

so it proves the conjecture for positive destinations n >= 1.

it deliberately does not cover n = 0: every modeled walk has taken its initial step and is at a positive position, at least as far as i understand it.

A014701(1) = 0 corresponds to the empty walk.

IsLeast {j | Reachable n j} k give us both halves of the "minimality argument:" a walk reaches n in k steps, and every other achievable step count is at least k.

the Lean formulation deliberately avoids truncated subtraction in ℕ; by the formula above, its RHS states exactly k = A014701(n + 1).

the geometry of the decision tree

i'll be honest: i looked at all that confused and thought to myself well, isn't the geometry of this encoded in the decision tree? can't i just see it?

thus, i asked my stochastic parrot to produce some nice ASCII visualizations with supporting prose that brings the thought to life.

each node in the tree below is (position, step length) and K = keep, D = double.

                                  (1,1)
                         K       /     \       D
                                /       \
                             (2,1)     (3,2)
                       K    /   \ D   K /   \ D
                           /     \     /     \
                        (3,1)  (4,2) (5,2)  (7,4)

now, the useful geometry appears when taking the decision tree and folding it by (p,s); consider the following

                 K             K              D
(p,s) ------> (p+s,s) ----> (p+2s,s) ----> (p+4s,2s)
  |                                                   ^
  | D                                                 |
  v                                                   |
(p+2s,2s) -------------------- K ---------------------+

the upper route is KKD and the lower route is DK. both finish at the same full state, but the lower route uses two transitions instead of three. this is binary carrying made visible:

KKD  -->  DK          two keeps of size s become one keep of size 2s

if two keeps occur at the very end (...KK), it can be replaced by a single D.

let's call any arbitrary string of K and D choices a decision word. since doubles only move down, every such word has one block of K at each scale:

scale 2^0:    K ... K    D
scale 2^1:    K ... K    D
   ...
scale 2^t:    K ... K    stop
              < c_t >

p + 1 = 2^(t+1) + c_0 2^0 + c_1 2^1 + ... + c_t 2^t

k     = 1 + t + c_0 + c_1 + ... + c_t.

scale 2^0:    [K if bit 0 is 1]    D
scale 2^1:    [K if bit 1 is 1]    D
                 ...
scale 2^t:    [K if bit t is 1]    stop

t + 2              = bitLength(p + 1)
1 + sum of the c_i = popCount(p + 1)

k = bitLength(p + 1) + popCount(p + 1) - 2.

so, there you have it: an arbitrary walk acts like a binary expansion with uncarried digits, while a shortest walk is the unique fully carried word, with at most one keep at each scale.

you may look at these visualizations and and similarly be tempted to make the following conjecture:

for each positive target, there is exactly one shortest decision word.

so, i handed this off to my harness, and about 20 minutes later, it produced a machine-checked proof for this conjecture. i am not convinced it is that interesting or useful, but the experience of being able to go from writing this post, seeing something interesting, and backgrounding the proof whilst not giving up focus on writing this post was notable.

the proof exists nearby at List WalkDecision:

theorem existsUnique_shortest_decisionWord (n : ℕ) (hn : 1 ≤ n) :
    ∃! w : List WalkDecision,
      decisionPosition w = n ∧
        IsLeast {j : ℕ | Reachable n j} (w.length + 1)

proof kernel

for the boring details, the proof contains three claims, only two of which are required to prove the conjecture as Rebert wrote:

1. no walk can beat the binary cost

2. a walk built from binary digits attains that cost

3. (extra credit) the attained decicion word is unique

we get (1) and (2) by packaging

binCost m = m.bits.length + popCount m

and

/- q ≠ 0, r < 2^u -/
binCost (q * 2^u + r) = u + binCost q + popCount r

an induction over a Reach k p s derivation supplies the lower bound by maintaining

s = 2^t ∧ 2^(t+1) ≤ p + 1 ∧ binCost (p + 1) ≤ k + 2

the keep and double cases both reduce to one exchange lemma:

2^u ≤ P → binCost (P + 2^u) ≤ binCost P + 1

here P = p + 1. the last part of the invariant says that every walk of length k reaching n satisfies

binCost (n + 1) ≤ k + 2

(i have no idea why the agent decided to style it this way.)

finally, we show the above step count k satisfies

k + 2 = (n + 1).bits.length + popCount (n + 1)

StepWalk.lean compiles without sorry, admit, or native_decide.

#print axioms reports exactly [propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound] for both rebert_conjecture and rebert_conjecture_iInf.

the file also checks 14 selected OEIS terms in the kernel: indices 1..8, 15, 16, 31, 32, 64, and 86, through a(86) = 9.

literature check

i have little in the way of understanding if this is an obvious exercise that any practitioner can otherwise prove trivially. after actually reading further into the problem, i am fairly confident this is not a notable result.

closing thoughts

i spent way more time than i care to admit trying to understand the generated proof and its formulation. this blog post is me vicariously lifting my sunk-cost fallacy to you.

it very well could be that i am the first person to waste time on this exercise; in any case, it was a nearly-free drive-by that was serving other purposes.