traes

17 ms·

1.
by traes 7d ago
This is simply blatant misinformation. If you play a game online on lichess and go to the analysis board you can find when your game becomes novel. It will be within 20 turns unless you are intentionally following a known opening. In fact i
2.
by traes 7d ago
> one of the obvious applications of novel mathematical results is in building stronger AI models. This gets repeated a lot and seems to be one of the primary stated goals of making AI solve math problems, but I still have no idea by wha
3.
by traes 7d ago
> Also, his opinion of AI has continually changed in the past years, after the capabilities were demonstrated. Ignoring the other ridiculous parts of your comment, isn't this exactly what you're supposed to do? Update your beli
4.
by traes 10d ago
This is true, but I'm not sure it matters? I was poking around at the lichess database recently and those elo calibrated bots are remarkably well calibrated, their rating variance sticks out like a sore thumb compared to human playe
5.
by traes 17d ago
Yes, it absolutely is what it shows[0]. I have no idea what data you're looking at that suggests otherwise. Worldwide or in the US, as public individuals or as search terms with quotes or without quotes, over any reasonable timespan, t
6.
by traes 17d ago
> Now, Tao is a sort of a celebrity of the quarter on HN, but I promise you that outside this forum, almost no one has ever heard of him. This is an absurd thing to say. Hacker news is not the only place that knows about the most famous
7.
by traes 18d ago
He was specifically working on the Euler equations, which are the Navier-Stokes equations with the viscosity term removed. This is definitionally a smaller related problem. I'm not sure how you are calling that claim wrong.
8.
by traes 18d ago
Which seems to be entirely true by their own admission! [0] Both the comments about him risking his career and about Levent's authorship seem to have indeed occurred. > 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship
9.
by traes 18d ago
I would assume they are calling the snark from Noam Brown and Dan Roberts bullying, not the somewhat bland denial.
10.
by traes 18d ago
Perhaps out of a sense of academic good will, knowing that he got there first? It seems like the timeline according to OpenAI is that: 1. Buckmaster developed a counterexample to a reduced version of Navier-Stokes with Anthropic employee Le
11.
by traes 18d ago
Because OpenAI employees kept leaking that Anthropic had a solution to Navier-Stokes and he wanted to figure out what was going on, since he was working on Navier-Stokes with an Anthropic employee. The rumor has been loudly circling the mat
12.
by traes 18d ago
The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xca
13.
by traes 18d ago
To be clear, Astra played little part in Buckmaster and Alpoge's work: > We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeu
14.
by traes 18d ago
No. From the paper linked above [0]: > The phase of free fall is predicted in a purely quantum manner to have a dependence m/6 g^2T^3/ℏ + gmzT on the free-fall time T, where m is the mass of the object, g is the gravitational a
15.
by traes 18d ago
Seems like they just added a linear gravitational potential term mgz to their hamiltonian and computed the phase change it would induce. They claim they experimentally confirmed the phase change. I didn't think that worked! They also c
16.
by traes 21d ago
The repo is public. You can just go look! It's really not that surprising; FLT is huge and has a ton of dependencies that need to be implemented, and there's a degree of sloppification that is probably blowing up the size by a few
17.
by traes 21d ago
25-50 seems like a pretty lowball estimate, I guess depending on your definition of "understand."
18.
by traes 21d ago
We have absolutely no idea if this was a brilliant breakthrough or not. They haven't released any explanation of how it was found. A problem being old and prestigious does not mean its solution is automatically a brilliant breakthrough
19.
by traes 21d ago
It's true that his goal was not the full thing, but it was also not merely a Lean verified proof. From the blog post linked in the toptext: > The work certainly achieves some of the aims of the EPSRC project, and indeed it goes much
20.
by traes 26d ago
For clarity: The autumn wind moves slow across the field, and every falling leaf now yields its fight. The summer gold at last has ceased to yield, and short days now give way to longer night. I walk alone beside a calm and quie
21.
by traes 1mo ago
Completely off topic, but I really don't understand the demographic of physics educators that are resistant to Dirac notation in a first QM course. It isn't really that hard to explain or understand, it's extraordinarily conv
22.
by traes 1mo ago
The title should say (2022)
23.
by traes 1mo ago
Very bold title! Turns are very convenient until you need to calculate a rate of change, as of course d/dx sin(2pi x) = 2pi cos(2pi x). Unfortunately this is a common enough problem that I will be sticking with the radian.
24.
by traes 1mo ago
I think the volume explanation is one of the most intuitive pieces of math in existence, personally! Uninvertibility of a tranformation corresponds to a volume of zero because the transformation must squish two dimensions together, leaving
25.
by traes 1mo ago
Note that "done right" means done with Axler's completely subjective and unusual hatred of determinants, chronicled here [0]. It is in no way "done right" in some definitive, rigorous way; most math professors I hav
26.
by traes 1mo ago
This polemic: Sheldon Axler -- Down With Determinants https://www.axler.net/DwD.html A strange and unpopular opinion.
27.
by traes 1mo ago
There was no depth to mathematics in Euler's time, he made the depth. He arguably didn't understand analysis on a technical level as well as a modern undergraduate; as I recall, he was confident that all smooth functions are analy
28.
by traes 1mo ago
How fast do your monkeys type?
29.
by traes 1mo ago
Proof verification can be done automatically via Lean (or similar), so the parallel breaks down unfortunately. The only thing humans really need to verify is the translation of the theorem statement and the correctness of the proof checker.
30.
by traes 1mo ago
> If progress is stuck, the machine turns the gauge away from "exploit" and toward "explore" It sounds like you've answered your own question of: > why "pure mathematics" should persist as a field of

More ›