Am I reading the article wrong? It appears that the author did not test the claims of the proof. Wouldn't a "bug" in this case mean she found an input that did not survive a round trip through the compression algorithm?
Update: Actually, I guess this may have been her point: "The two bugs that were found both sat outside the boundary of what the proofs cover." So then I guess the title might be a bit click baity.
Update: Actually, I guess this may have been her point: "The two bugs that were found both sat outside the boundary of what the proofs cover." So then I guess the title might be a bit click baity.