Crank author at a crank “institution” - I can’t assess whether the OpenAI paper is accurate but I highly doubt this is going to be the paper to disprove it.
Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
Genuine question - this is so hard for me to follow. Not that I could follow the original disproof anyways. But how is "truth" determined when the effort required to validate is so high?
That's different though. Understanding the spec of Fermat's last theorem is simple. Here, you already need to know some mathematics just to understand the spec.
These AI generated proofs have something akin to the quantum algorithms that can generate a response that would take 1 billion years of processing to finish on a classical computer. How do you test them to see if the result was correct?
One of mathematicians working at OpenAI refuted those claims directly on X - https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083656978719719601
The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
Crank author at a crank “institution” - I can’t assess whether the OpenAI paper is accurate but I highly doubt this is going to be the paper to disprove it.
link for the curious https://philarchive.org/archive/NIEPOT-5
Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
Author is a crackpot. She does not meaningfully engage with anyone who points out the key flaw in her counterargument. See the thread here https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083649346294382803
Genuine question - this is so hard for me to follow. Not that I could follow the original disproof anyways. But how is "truth" determined when the effort required to validate is so high?
It's a common problem in math. The famous proof for Fermat's last theorem took 2 years to validate.
That's different though. Understanding the spec of Fermat's last theorem is simple. Here, you already need to know some mathematics just to understand the spec.
These AI generated proofs have something akin to the quantum algorithms that can generate a response that would take 1 billion years of processing to finish on a classical computer. How do you test them to see if the result was correct?
This "paper" itself is 100% AI-generated...
What makes you say that? Not dunking, I skimmed it (I’m in no way at this level) and didn’t see anything outright Claud-y.
Opus 5 says the disproof is wrong.
does this show Lean is not bulletproof?