Wondering: if the process for the upper part of the sandwich is the complement of the process for the lower part, why was it so much more difficult? What would go wrong if you took one of the earlier lower-sandwich processes, and complemented it in a similar way? I have to assume it's something, but what?
There must be a use for this as a Claude Code skill.
Actual meat: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20765
Isn't it actually the bread? The meat is given, if I understand correctly.
Nice, it's pre-AI
Hilarious - a mathematical result that afaict has nothing whatsoever to do with AI, and 75% of the comments are about AI, including this one!
Wondering: if the process for the upper part of the sandwich is the complement of the process for the lower part, why was it so much more difficult? What would go wrong if you took one of the earlier lower-sandwich processes, and complemented it in a similar way? I have to assume it's something, but what?
I am not a mathematician but are most papers now accompanied by a lean proof?
Is there a central repository of lean proofs shared by mathematicians like an npm repository of JavaScript packages?
Does it all depend on a stupid is-odd package in the end?
No, almost none (except for in certain fields, such as HoTT) have formalized proofs.
Why not? It seems like this should sort of be the standard now? Or is it hard to make lean proofs in all fields?
It's new but there is actually a registry now: https://palomar-registry.org/
LLMs have gotten good at creating Lean proofs so the are much more common but not universal. And they depend on https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4
Seems like this would have strong implications for distillation and/or smaller types of transformers!
No, this is pure graph theory, and is quite far away from anything machine learning.
How? I don't see it. (I'm familiar with the ML side, not the combinatorics side.)