If you said you "solved", yes - if you said "found a solution" however, there's ambiguity to it, which is part of the confusion here.

Some of the most important advancements in the history of science came from reviewing underappreciated discoveries that already existed in the literature. Mendel's work on genetics went under appreciated for decades before being effectively rediscovered, and proved to be integral to the modern synthesis, which provided a genetic basis for evolution, and is the most important development in the history of our understanding of evolution since Darwin and Wallace's original formulation.

Henrietta Leavitt's work on the relation between a stars period of pulsation and brightness was tucked away in a Harvard Journal, which had revolutionary potential not appreciated until Hubbel recalled and applied her work years later to demonstrate galactic redshift in Andromeda, understanding that it was an entirely separate galaxy, that it was receding away from us and contributing to the bedrock of modern cosmology.

The pathogenic basis for ulcers was proposed in the 1940s, which later became instrumental to explaining data in the 1980s and led to a Nobel prize in 2005.

It is and has always been fundamental to the progress of human knowledge to not just propose new ideas but to pull pertinent ones from the literature and apply them in new contexts, and depending on the field, the research landscape can be inconceivably vast, so efficiencies in combing through it can create the scaffolding for major advancements in understanding.

So there's more going on here than "lying".