Flood and Harvest: The Provable Necessity of Trivia for Generating Valuable Mathematics via the Lens of Language Generation in the Limit

AI systems coupled to proof assistants now generate formal mathematics at scale, and the gap between what a checker can verify and what a mathematician would value has become the binding constraint. We model the generation of valuable mathematics as nested language generation in the limit: a verifiable formal language $F$, accessed through a membership oracle (the proof checker), contains an unknown valuable language $H \in \mathcal{H}$ revealed only through an adversarial enumeration of a core $C \subseteq H$ of exact density $α$ (the literature). Every output is valuable ($\in H$), trivial ($\in F \setminus H$), or a hallucination ($\notin F$). We settle four questions. First, the verifier is not taste: the collections admitting generation with breadth are exactly those of the oracle-free model, characterized fiber-wise by Angluin's condition. Second, the verifier does buy sound coverage, covering all unseen valuable statements while asserting only valid ones: possible with it, impossible without it; it relocates unavoidable errors from false to trivial. Third, and centrally, a sharp dichotomy on the tight family: generators emitting finitely many trivia achieve optimal coverage $α/2$, while any infinite trivia allowance, even at vanishing rate, jumps the optimum to $1-α/2$ (both tight, for cores presented as the candidate intersection), and one generator attains both ends. The transition is in trivia count, not rate; the gap $1-α$ is the unrecorded mass. Fourth, both regimes instantiate in a compression model of mathematics. A perfect verifier cannot substitute for taste: the unbounded stream of correct-but-worthless statements is not an engineering accident but a provable necessity, since covering unrecorded valuable mathematics requires an infinite, but asymptotically negligible, stream of certified trivia.

A Theoretical Framework for Self-Play Theorem Proving Algorithms

Self-play, a type of training algorithm that enables a model to self-improve, has recently shown promising empirical results in the context of formal theorem proving using Large Language Models (LLMs). (Dong & Ma, 2025) instantiate self-play with two cooperating agents: a prover, which proves theorems, and a conjecturer, which generates new theorems as a curriculum to the prover. In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework for understanding the self-improvement capabilities of self-play algorithms for theorem proving. First, we formalize the set of theorems as a graph, with nodes as theorems and edges between pairs of theorems with similar semantics. We introduce a set of primitive assumptions that characterize the guarantees of a trained prover and how a conjecturer can access the structure of the graph. Second, we show that if the underlying graph of theorems is well-connected, then a prover-conjecturer system, where the conjecturing algorithm is based on a reversible random walk, is sufficient to grow the set of proved theorems exponentially. Third, motivated by an issue encountered empirically by self-play algorithms, where the conjecturer tends to generate artificially complex and non-fundamental theorems, we propose a diversity measure for a training distribution of theorems generated by a conjecturer and an improved conjecturing algorithm that locally maximizes this diversity measure, by computing the diffusion similarity between neighboring theorems in the theorem graph. Finally, we describe a method to compute the diffusion similarity by using contrastive learning to embed nodes into Euclidean space and then computing the inner-product between embeddings.