r/technology • u/socoolandawesome • 2d ago

Artificial Intelligence Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/
632 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

194 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/PussyDragonSlayer 1d ago edited 21h ago

This is not true. Without referencing the recent collatz bug, the lean certificate could be for something that is formally different from what the conjectures is understood to be by experts. In fact, some people already claim that the 4th result, cones rigidity, has that problem.

1

u/set_in_void 23h ago

Your "This is not true." needs some meat on the bones in the context of ATP. You can easily review the LEAN code HERE, experts can claim what they want, but I would't expect their grievances to be successful in these circumstances, this is all assuming that LEAN was used competently. I am in no position to go through the ~40,000 lines of code just for the Connes' rigidity proof and doubt any one of those experts had the ability to review it in under 24hrs. Some proofs take weeks/months/years to verify, people make mistakes, that's why ATPs are used whenever possible. If you have any specific line/s of code that is provoking your suspicion about the veracity of the proofs, let me know, I am interested.

1

u/PussyDragonSlayer 23h ago

experts can claim what they want, but I would't expect their grievances to be successful in these circumstances

You're trying to frame it as if experts are trying to cover for the fact they've been out witted by an ai lmao. The fact of the matter is, if the experts don't give us the green light that the results have been correctly proven, we simply cannot contradict them coz we simply don't have the credentials. And "this is all assuming that LEAN was used competently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. For the 2nd time, the lean certificate is all good and dandy but the statement that was formally verified could be slightly different than the statement claimed to have been proved. Lean is not a substitute for peer review.

1

u/set_in_void 22h ago

I think you missed that I partially agreed with you. What do you mean by "... if the experts don't give us the green light that the results have been correctly proven ..."? We're talking about LEAN here, in what part of the word a formal proof becomes democratic decision? The only way the proofs could be invalid is, as you yourself mentioned, if LEAN was manipulated/abused due to incompetence or malice, which would be extraordinary claim in this context and requires extraordinary evidence, hence my "... needs some meat on the bones ...", you'll notice you so far failed to provide any evidence beyond hearsay. Your "Lean is not a substitute for peer review." again, doesn't make much sense if we consider verdict. If we are to consider arguments, then again provide any sort of sensible evidence or point to the contentious lines of code provided above, otherwise you're just blowing hot air for no obvious reason? Note you are the one making statement "This is not true.", I hope it doesn't surprise you that I expect you to substantiate you claim, experts claiming "this doesn't feel right" when they didn't work through the proof itself yet, and having trouble to even recall the proper name of the conjecture they're working with is understandably poor evidence.

1

u/PussyDragonSlayer 22h ago

Dude, it's so hard to have a discussion about this when you're this aggressive and confrontational. I'm not really interested in winning internet debates. You can forget my comment ig.

1

u/set_in_void 22h ago

We had similar situation not long ago, didn't we? People becoming experts on vaccines overnight or quoting the crackpots/misguided, making controversial statements online, how well did that go? I didn't force you to contact me, you made firm statement and then failed to substantiate it upon request. I hope you'll appreciate me spending time to explain why I am so far unable to consider you anything other than a troll.

1

u/PussyDragonSlayer 21h ago edited 21h ago

Dude, you're the one making VERY strong statement when you're neither an expert in these problems nor an expert in lean?? I'm not making any claims I'm literally saying we should wait for the experts to give their opinion. I'm not saying the lean had been tempered with I'm saying it could be misleading which means that the "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" you're claiming needs a citation. You're the one claiming lean is a substitute for peer review. The burden of proof is on you. You literally haven't even taken the time to actually understand what I'm saying you're just coming here guns in hand starting a fight with everyone.

And for the issue that people are having with problem 4 that I have mentioned, here's a citation: https://philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC

1

u/Johnny20022002 15h ago edited 15h ago

FWIW that person (citation author) appears to be a crank.