5 ms·
Maybe not? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjecture&diff=prev&oldid=1365082008 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjec
by kmaitreys 2mo ago
Maybe not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjecture&diff=prev&oldid=1365082008 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu...
- Tiberium 2mo agoI think the editor themselves misunderstood the conjecture. UPD: The edit got reverted and there's this on the talk page now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaRealPoopster2-20260720044500-~2026-40618-57-20260720042600 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-DaR... UPD2: There are edit wars happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjecture&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobian_conjectu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-SeaHaircutSoilReplace-20260720050600-NOR/RS_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#c-Sea...
- tptacek 2mo agoWikipedia's gonna Wikipedia. Unless there's a material debate over the Jacobian Conjecture itself, there's really no open question here. This isn't a complicated proof; it's a straightforwardly checkable certificate of a solution.
- qsort 2mo agoIt's tedious, but you could literally even do this by hand. I'm pretty sure I've done worse coordinate bash back when I did math competitions in high school.
- jibal 2mo agoI removed the "claimed" weasel wording, and now others have followed up. The editors that don't understand math and don't realize how easily this counterexample can be confirmed have lost the debate -- not that there really ever was one.
- kzrdude 2mo agoWikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard. Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.
- handoflixue 2mo agoThe problem is, "dozens of mathematicians have independently confirmed this, and no one in the community has made any credible objections" is actually a much more reliable source than a link to an article. It's just less legible to administrators.
- tptacek 2mo agoIt's not really the job of an encyclopedia to be an up-to-the-minute reliable news source. Over the long term, the benefits of the reliable sourcing policy likely outweigh temporary issues like this.
- jibal 2mo agoI know what the policies are and I followed them. I also read the entire discussion on the talk page before making my change ... I doubt that you did. WP:BASICMATH says that this is not OR. If this were OR then even the "claimed" statement would have required RS. No one was willing to remove the counterexample altogether, so my edit to remove the "claimed" weasel word was perfectly valid.
- whimsicalism 2mo ago[flagged]
- virgildotcodes 2mo agoWhen you eat alphabet soup, do you take note of all the leftist messages bobbing in and out of existence in your bowl?
- whimsicalism 2mo ago[flagged]
- verteu 2mo agoI agree, the conjecture never says anything about a proper map.
- rvz 2mo agoI'd rather wait for independent seasoned mathematicians to verify such claims first before someone at said AI lab posting a claim about solving a proof online. Let this be a lesson to those who fell for such AI psychosis and to not believe everything you see on the internet as real.
- jibal 2mo agoIt's a counterexample, not a proof. A schoolchild can confirm it.
- tptacek 2mo agoWell, I mean, come on. There aren't that many minors who have taken basic multivariable calculus. But there are a lot of (technical) teenagers who could confirm it!
- tptacek 2mo agoIt's a Jacobian determinant and three points. You can check this yourself in Sage. The author is a Princeton math doctorate.
- markasoftware 2mo agoplaying devil's advocate a little bit, but wikipedia does have a policy against original research. If you published an obviously correct counterexample to wikipedia which is not anywhere else on the internet (or in a book, etc), the rules are clear: the counterexample must be removed. in this case it's not original research, because there's a tweet by someone with a good reputation, and plenty of comments on said tweet corroborating the result. But it's a more sketchy "secondary source" than most wikipedia references and some caution on the part of the editors is not out of place. (saying this as the person who made the original edit to the wikipedia page adding the counterexample)
- tptacek 2mo agoI'm not complaining about Wikipedia here, just noting for the thread: it's a vector of polynomials. It has a nonsingular Jacobian. Provided with it are 3 distinct points it sends to the same point; it can't be invertible. What Wikipedia says about this doesn't matter, does it?
- randompartytime 2mo ago[flagged]
- rowbin 2mo agoAnti-AI mentality claims another victim
- slopinthebag 2mo agoThe author has a PhD in math from Cambridge. If it turns out to be a false claim it is an interesting case study on AI's sycophancy causing even experts to drop their guard and make mistakes.
- omaranto 2mo agoWho do you mean? The author of the tweet is Levent Alpöge, who does not have a PhD in math from Cambridge... but does have a PhD in math from Princeton. And his advisor was Fields Medalist Manjul Bhargava. Also, there is no way this counterexample is wrong. You can very easily check it for yourself. (I did, I don't know why, obviously Levent wouldn't be wrong about this, but I guess I was in shock.)
- nullc 2mo agoIrony in the message you're responding to likely suffering from slop-facts itself. And indeed it's trivial to verify.
- EagnaIonat 2mo ago[flagged]
- meowface 2mo agoI don't know why you're saying this, given this is not sycophancy and instead is an actual example of Claude Fable finding a real counterexample. I would get it if the mathematician had in fact posted something untrue or crankish, but he posted something true. Frontier models have solved several major open problems in mathematics in the past few months, so this should not be a huge shock. "Anti-AI psychosis" will probably grow to outcompete AI psychosis by year's end.
- Lerc 2mo ago>"Anti-AI psychosis" will probably grow to outcompete AI psychosis by year's end. Everyone has their own experiences making it hard to judge what attitudes are prevalent. From what I have encountered the Anti-AI people have been more common and more outright scary. I have heard some ideas from the Pro AI crowd and thought to myself "Yeah, that's not going to happen anytime soon", There was enthusiasm leading to overoptimism. A lot of them are going to be disappointed. The Anti AI crowd, which I distinguish from those who want AI done responsibly, sustainably, and as safe as can be realistically be managed. There are real criticisms to be made on real issues here. The Anti AI crowd I see seem to want to scrub the world of it, they stand in the way of any responsible implementation because it would be accepting it. Those people scare me, the vitriol and bad faith interpretation of everything as an indicator of the proof of their reality has the tone of the moral righteousness of a true believer. The outright endorsement of violent acts has me concerned that the more radical or emotionally unstable of the group will do some serious harm. It's not the bulk of a radical movement that causes atrocities, most of those involved just create an environment that normalises toxic attitudes. That environment can incubate a few individuals that act, either for phycological reasons, status, or simple the inability to empathise or consider consequences.
- tacomonstrous 2mo agoThis is nonsensical: Properness of the map is equivalent to its being an isomorphism (quick proof: Jacobian invertible implies that the map is etale, and properness would imply that it is finite etale, but affine space doesn't admit non-trivial finite etale covers), so the lack of properness is just another way of verifying that this is indeed a counterexample.
- Davidzheng 2mo agosure it does? two copies of the affine line? (I guess there's no galois group & no connected finite etale things tho)
- tacomonstrous 2mo agoI would call that a trivial finite etale cover :)