It seems they don't actually consult experts when saying such things. IIRC, they've made claims of novelty like this before and then been wrong because they did

It seems they don't actually consult experts when saying such things. IIRC, they've made claims of novelty like this before and then been wrong because they didn't do their homework. If it truly is a new identity (and not a specialization of something already known), then that's kind of interesting. But given their track record, I find it unlikely. One much always be very careful when claiming some identity like this is new. Even excellent researchers can get burned – it has happened to Doron Zeilberger, one of the pioneers of algorithmic mathematics, at least one. (I'm looking for the details but unfortunately can't find them at the moment...) edit: The issue in the latter case may have been a very simple analytic proof existing, not novelty per se. He had posted correspondence between him and another mathematician on his website but apparently deleted it. Also, the blog post linked above has been updated: https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2021/02/11/ramanujan-machine-redux/ https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2021/02/11/ramanujan-m...