Kotlopou

4 ms·

1.
by Kotlopou 13d ago
This is not what Gödel says, and in fact your statement is true in a trivial way: you can prove 1+1=2, and Not(Not(1+1=2)), and Not(Not(Not(Not(1+1=2)))), etc. ad infinitum. This is an infinite space of provable true statements that can be
2.
by Kotlopou 14d ago
Very cool, if of unclear purpose. After a minute of trial and error I got through with an easy prime factorization, and then again for the download with the reaction time button, only to be told "This challenge produced a local demo to
3.
Clawptcha: Reverse Captcha(clawptcha.com)
3 points by Kotlopou 14d ago|0 comments
4.
by Kotlopou 16d ago
This is pretty, but none of those visualisations look very... singular to me? Can anyone tell me where to look in those simulations to see the blowup? Does speed go infinite in some region (which one? the blue or orange part?), or just non-
5.
by Kotlopou 17d ago
To go a bit off-track based on your final sentence: my high school physics teacher would do any numerical calculation that came up first in his head, as an estimate, and only then use a calculator or write on the board. Usually the estimate
6.
The Age of Wonders and Terrors(scottaaronson.blog)
25 points by Kotlopou 18d ago|2 comments
7.
by Kotlopou 20d ago
It's a standard coordination problem: I don't like X, but some discussion happens there (e.g. plenty of competent mathematicians responding to the Navier-Stokes situation) and I cannot force people to move elsewhere.
8.
by Kotlopou 24d ago
Inventing calculus to calculate pi? I don't think that ever happened...
9.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Okay, from the actual linked article it seems that their partial result was finding blowup in Euler equations, which seems pretty big. I wonder how the other attempts went. Did they get nothing at all, or something true but unimpressive?
10.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
I do remember when hearing about Simón Bolívar's crossing of the Andes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7nJjprbQg ) "I wish I had this guy's energy and drive". Some people just seem to be on another lev
11.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Elsewhere in this thread somebody claimed that at some point OpenAI pointed their new model at all the millennium problems and this is where they got some progress. We probably won't see proof of this, but it seems plausible to me -- I
12.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Since he wrote this five days ago, when these efforts were already underway, if he was not Terence Tao I would suspect he had inside access. But since he said he did not and was speaking hypothetically, and he seems to be an honest person a
13.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Where did you get the human figure?
14.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Not all, see the cycle double cover conjecture proof: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48863490 But yeah, Terry Tao considered this exact situation in advance and is on record that this exact outcome (rushing to priorit
15.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Why do so many people involved here have to communicate in this childish way? You have people on the OpenAI side doing playground taunts ( https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902 ) and Levent Alpö
16.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
There has been the proof of the cycle double cover conjecture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48863490
17.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
Unshortened: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8...
18.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
It has been one hour and the proof has 165 pages. Give them some time.
19.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
No idea about which is more likely, but I'm rooting for Yang-Mills. It's absurd that fundamental physics has formulated its most precise currently known theory way back in the seventies and since then, even a tiny subset of it can
20.
by Kotlopou 25d ago
For now I think more or less the same thing as with all recent math announcements: This is in a range where human work still exists (see Terry Tao, (1)). I wonder whether the trend will extend into the problems that (as far as I can tell) a
21.
by Kotlopou 29d ago
I don't particularly believe this (I'm not an expert in anything computer-y, let alone security, so the only thing I know is that people who seem respected here (like simonw) point out that the sandbox from OpenAI was at least ver
22.
by Kotlopou 29d ago
You're right, I'm prejudiced against Quanta (often IMO they look for a clean narrative to the point of misleading and/or rely too much on metaphors) and was probably too harsh here. Sorry! That said, I don't like them be
23.
by Kotlopou 29d ago
This paper is a pet peeve of mine. Look at the appendix! On page 22, you see a typical conversation people were judging based on. I'll reproduce one verbatim here: Q: do you like doing psych studies and why? A: theyre chill, easy money
24.
by Kotlopou 1mo ago
I would be curious about Bongard problems, because they require no domain-specific knowledge and it's so easy to make new ones that are in no training set. There's enough of an explanation here: https://matthodges.com&#
25.
by Kotlopou 1mo ago
(not the person you replied to) I have no idea what you're hoping the contribution would be. The AdS/CFT correspondence is 29 years old by now and it doesn't seem to apply to our spacetime, where the cosmological constant see
26.
by Kotlopou 1mo ago
This might just not be possible at the current time. In 1899, there was an "experimental overhang" in physics -- results that could not be explained theoretically (Michelson-Morley, but also lots and lots of empirical material&#x2
27.
The Last Bit per Character(beatingthehydra.substack.com)
2 points by Kotlopou 2mo ago|0 comments
28.
by Kotlopou 2mo ago
Could you share a link to this paper? A quick search only found reports about this Claude result and a bunch of crank proofs of RH. Edited to add: Found a conversation between actual mathematicians that probably could be used to track this
29.
by Kotlopou 2mo ago
The oldest unanswered math problem known, based on ( https://mathoverflow.net/questions/27075/what-is-the-oldest-... ), is whether there are any odd perfect numbers (= numbers that are equal to the sum of their divi
30.
by Kotlopou 2mo ago
Came here looking for this, sadly there's little engagement with the actual math in this thread. I hold out hope that Scott Aaronson might comment on the circuit bound eventually...

More ›