3 ms·

> Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely. Why hide th

> Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely. Why hide the names of the people who wrote the second paper? To discourage people from citing it instead of the LLM-derived paper?

math_dandy 2mo ago
> Levent Alpöge and Ralph Furman, two of Anthropic’s own mathematicians, examined Claude’s work to understand the new results and how they related to the prior work mentioned above.
- briansmith 2mo ago
  Are they the authors of the “informal note” or not? I’ve never seen a math paper of any formality written without the authors’ names on it before.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fph 2mo ago
    Anthropic seems to be challenging the traditional way math gets published. As far as I understand, these results did not get submitted to journals, and did not get Arxiv preprints; they are released only as self-hosted pdfs, and we don't even know the names of their authors. The canonical reference for the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is a tweet with no puntuations nor capitals.
    - wbl 2mo ago
      I've cited letters from Serre to Tate in my dissertation: this is the source for what's known as Faltings-Serre.
    - jsnell 2mo ago
      As far as I can tell, Arxiv does not allow an AI to be listed as the author, so publishing there would not have been an option. https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy-on-chatgpt-and-similar-tools/ https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy...
      - fph 2mo ago
        The current consensus in mathematical publishing is that LLMs are tools, so they don't get listed among the authors. But nothing would have prevented them from posting these preprints on Arxiv, with the human prompters as authors and the LLM's contribution acknowledged in the text.
        famouswaffles 2mo ago
        One of the 2 names on here says they aren't being listed as an author on the paper because their contributions don't meet the standards of authorship. People can call LLMs 'tools' or whatever they want but if you had essentially nothing to do with the breakthrough, you're not an author.
arjie 2mo ago
The full paragraph quoted for other readers is: > Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely. Claude also produced a formally verifiable proof of its result. We are grateful to Brian Conrey and Dan Goldston, two experts in this area, who generously examined the paper on short notice. They may wish to know that an archive of the page on 2026-08-10 at 17:47:33 is available with this paragraph here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260810174733/https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://web.archive.org/web/20260810174733/https://www.anthr...
rfurmani 2mo ago
I'm one of those two, as mentioned later in the post! As it stands, by mathematical standards, it would be inappropriate for us to be authors on the paper since our role was more like a highly interested referee, but we do take mathematical accountability for it. This all happened very quickly, but we will be sure to continue to polish the paper and make it ready for publication.

math_dandy 2mo ago

> Levent Alpöge and Ralph Furman, two of Anthropic’s own mathematicians, examined Claude’s work to understand the new results and how they related to the prior work mentioned above.

briansmith 2mo ago
Are they the authors of the “informal note” or not? I’ve never seen a math paper of any formality written without the authors’ names on it before.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- fph 2mo ago
  Anthropic seems to be challenging the traditional way math gets published. As far as I understand, these results did not get submitted to journals, and did not get Arxiv preprints; they are released only as self-hosted pdfs, and we don't even know the names of their authors. The canonical reference for the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is a tweet with no puntuations nor capitals.
  - wbl 2mo ago
    I've cited letters from Serre to Tate in my dissertation: this is the source for what's known as Faltings-Serre.
  - jsnell 2mo ago
    As far as I can tell, Arxiv does not allow an AI to be listed as the author, so publishing there would not have been an option. https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy-on-chatgpt-and-similar-tools/ https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy...
    - fph 2mo ago
      The current consensus in mathematical publishing is that LLMs are tools, so they don't get listed among the authors. But nothing would have prevented them from posting these preprints on Arxiv, with the human prompters as authors and the LLM's contribution acknowledged in the text.
      - famouswaffles 2mo ago
        One of the 2 names on here says they aren't being listed as an author on the paper because their contributions don't meet the standards of authorship. People can call LLMs 'tools' or whatever they want but if you had essentially nothing to do with the breakthrough, you're not an author.

arjie 2mo ago

The full paragraph quoted for other readers is: > Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely. Claude also produced a formally verifiable proof of its result. We are grateful to Brian Conrey and Dan Goldston, two experts in this area, who generously examined the paper on short notice. They may wish to know that an archive of the page on 2026-08-10 at 17:47:33 is available with this paragraph here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260810174733/https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://web.archive.org/web/20260810174733/https://www.anthr...

rfurmani 2mo ago

I'm one of those two, as mentioned later in the post! As it stands, by mathematical standards, it would be inappropriate for us to be authors on the paper since our role was more like a highly interested referee, but we do take mathematical accountability for it. This all happened very quickly, but we will be sure to continue to polish the paper and make it ready for publication.