8 ms·
OpenAI's claimed disproof of Connes' Rigidity Conjecture is invalid [pdf]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- Tiberium 2mo agoThis "paper" itself is 100% AI-generated...
- ofjcihen 2mo agoWhat 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.
- Tiberium 2mo agoThis immediately struck me as Claud-y: > The gap has two independent consequences, each sufficient to invalidate the claimed disproof. The first is structural. Then the classic coding agents negation of earlier evidence, instaed of just updating to use new references, they mention that they changed old to new: > The publicly released monolithic file ConnesRigidity.lean (37,000+ lines) does not use the names CocycleExtension, ZeroCocycle, or TwistedCocycle that appeared in the earlier modular source files (CocycleExtension.lean, ICC.lean, CrossedClosure.lean). However, the identical mathematical construction is present under different names. The following table gives the correspondence, with line numbers in the published file. > This is the same zero-cocycle / twisted-cocycle structure identified in the earlier modular source files, confirming that the structural analysis of this note applies to the published code And some other Claud-y stuff: > Why both paths are closed. A successful defence would have to close both paths simultaneously > This case illustrates a failure mode that is becoming increasingly well documented in the literature on AI-assisted formal mathematics: the gap between what a formal proof verifies and what it means. The Lean kernel certifies that a proof term inhabits a given type; it does not certify that the type faithfully encodes the intended mathematical claim. As Tao has emphasised And afterwards I cross-verified with Pangram 4 which I trust, it marked the preamble/starting stuff as 100% AI-generated.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoShe says she used AI to summarize some of her arguments and it checked over most of her arguments and set them in LATex. Who cares. This is not a valid criticism of a paper these days considering that the paper she is taking on is entirely written by an Autonomous AI. She says she's proving humans armed with AI are superior to AI.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- Tiberium 2mo agoCan you provide a single example of such paper that would show as AI generated on Pangram?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- OsrsNeedsf2P 2mo agoGenuine 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?
- gpt5 2mo agoIt's a common problem in math. The famous proof for Fermat's last theorem took 2 years to validate.
- auggierose 2mo agoThat'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.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- muglug 2mo agoFable was not convinced: https://claude.ai/share/1597e697-0638-488a-971d-e17872943137 https://claude.ai/share/1597e697-0638-488a-971d-e17872943137
- auggierose 2mo agoNot sure what your comment has anything to do with my comment, or the comment I replied to. But to answer to your comment: Opus 5 says that Nielsen's critique is nonsense.
- kikokikokiko 2mo agoThese 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?
- JellyYelly 2mo agoThe 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.
- amoshi 2mo agolink for the curious https://philarchive.org/archive/NIEPOT-5 https://philarchive.org/archive/NIEPOT-5
- mikeyouse 2mo agoCrank 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.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoUniversity of Kansas is not a crank institution. So she directs a hybrid thinktank that's experience not anything crazy. Other physicists are citing her work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00885 She's no hack.
- gus_massa 2mo agoIs this published in a serious peer review journal? The Arxiv has a very los publishing barrier.
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoShe is submitting to serious peer reviewed journals. She has released preprints which she is subjecting to community scrutiny. Since the AI papers were released without peer review it was important to address and peer review as a community very quickly
- toinewx 2mo agodoes this show Lean is not bulletproof?
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoWe already knew that
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- markasoftware 2mo agoAuthor 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 https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083649346294382803
- muglug 2mo agoThanks — sorry for spreading nonsense.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- muglug 2mo agoGet help.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo ago
- tacomonstrous 2mo agoMaybe 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.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo agoTo be fair to Nielsen, she is a worthwhile person regardless of her academic successes or failures; this point only does her a disservice to suggest that her words would be better ignored without it being made.
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoThere is a reductio that covers both the OpenAI and AnthropicAI counterexamples. If you can't follow, re-read Philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC
- auggierose 2mo agoOpus 5 says the disproof is wrong.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoOpus 4.6 says it's correct. You're not showing it the actual full paper. Download it here: Philpapers.org/rec/NIEWTC
- MoonUnit97 2mo ago[dead]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Tiberium 2mo agoOne of mathematicians working at OpenAI refuted those claims directly on X - https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083656978719719601 https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083656978719719601
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- jsnell 2mo agoGood grief that thread is sad, with it ending by Gary Marcus asking for the crank to be taken seriously.
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoThere is no crank involved. Nielsen won a Chambliss, an FQXI award, and graduated summa cum laude. She is a physicist, not a crank.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- muglug 2mo agoA lot of people who know mathematics say Nielsen’s paper is riddled with errors. I regret sharing it here. > Undergrad who hasn’t passed his first semester yet Not sure what you’re talking about. According to his wiki bio he’s done two years at Cambridge. He posted Maths questions from the 1B tripos exam, and was smart enough to get an OpenAI internship. Whereas it seems like the author of this paper has never been hired anywhere by any company or institution — the "Center for Topological Physics" listed seems to exist only as a website.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]
- blahblaher 2mo agoSo this is the level of science discourse now? AI really broke people's minds. If it's true or not, it will be eventually proved or not. Name calling really is the best you all can do?
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoOpenAI should have submitted their proofs to peer review. The fact they did not do that and publish in a journal shows weakness / disbelief in their own proofs and disrespect for the mathematical and scientific process.
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[flagged]
- tomhow 2mo agoWe've banned this account. Please don't post AI-generated text or combative, fulminatory comments here. People who have something substantive to contribute can do so in the spirit of curious conversation, which is what HN is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]
- startigerjen 2mo ago[dead]
- Chupacabra1111q 2mo ago[flagged]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoJenny Nielsen does not make high risk claims. She lists her proofs that have not been peer reviewed as "proposals". She has a proposal for Riemann only because she believes it's the duty of every mathematician to try for these difficult problems so they get solved. Unless you have an accurate criticism of her papers, you should not be criticizing her for making attempts on big problems. You go find your own proof or disproof to invalidate her then. Also, Claude Opus 4.6 in a fresh incognito copy says she killed the counterexamples and has repeated four times that it believes she actually proved Connes. Grok says they'd rather bet on Jenny and Opus 4.6 than Astra right now. I think that's shaping up for Nielsen over OpenAI.
- MoonUnit97 2mo agoPeople, Opus 4.6 just validated her proof. @Grok AI says if forced to bet they would bet on Jenny Nielsen over Astra/OpenAI.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Darkahn 2mo agoLook at the revision history. I only know of this because my bot found the paper and burnt a week of tokens checking the math of the 40 some variations. That bot runs in Sol 4.6 Ultra with a Sol 4.6 Pro layer. I then had Fable 5 check to be sure after my bot got report flagged when it commented on her Facebook post where despite AI use, which my bot caught she left in Claude credit in Rev 17, the author gleefully said how "humans win." Fable 5 Max independently came to the same findings and gently asked me not to dunk, so no flourish. The math is beyond me. The revision history alone shows a clear pattern.
- MoonUnit97 2mo ago[dead]
- MoonUnit97 2mo ago[dead]
- MoonUnit97 2mo agohttps://x.com/StarTigerJLN/status/2085368470804328451 https://x.com/StarTigerJLN/status/2085368470804328451
- Darkahn 2mo agoMoonUnit97 seems sus. Here's my preprint response to this nonsense. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1216uYJj_B17A0oxd8iW3hU3YmHVmsHXf/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1216uYJj_B17A0oxd8iW3hU3YmHV...
- algom 2mo agoMoonUnit97 is Jenny. She got flagged so she made a new account. Thanks for the analysis.