yeah

Giggling at this

I shouldn’t let such things bother me, but it does make me bitter when people forget that I do know how to solve things on my own e.g. Erdős 481 and 1/2 of 43, and do have published papers now… so whilst I’m not officially a mathematician, I think I’m closer to it than a random on Twitter lol

call me a pedal the way imma get stepped on or smth

yooo nice pedals

The latest reasoning models are solving mathematical problems that weren’t previously solved by humans (although out of lack of attention as opposed to difficulty thus far), so I don’t understand your claim. Models are definitely needing to construct a new combination of existing results at least.

LMAO was waiting for someone to say something like this

I wanna say he was born with it :3

Fun little fact about my fursona:
I have the Riemann zeta function plotted on the critical line on my back hah

Alas, RH was the problem that got me very interested in maths.

Likewise! Was nice to see ya too :) Was good

Doodle by .@finchwing.bsky.social :)

Stuff from LFM today :3

oh- would

I also dislike that I can't make private accounts on this platform lol

I think about Move 37 often. It will be so incredible one day when (hopefully safely!) we can get the models to come up with these creative breakthroughs in scientific domains.

A novel cancer drug, a RTP superconductor, a proof of RH, etc, etc. are all things that would net benefit humanity.

Guh I hate that hardly any of the accounts I follow and interact with are on this platform. Would have abandoned Twitter a long time ago if not for that…

Would an eventual LLM-generated correct proof of the Riemann hypothesis suffice to be impressed?

I mean it is impressive because it’s work that would be suitable for a human postdoc to write up and publish. Certainly we didn’t have models prior that could do work of such sophistication only a year ago.

I don’t really agree with this. The reasoning models have proven capable of deductive reasoning in combining established results and ideas in novel ways to form a new result (e.g. recent Erdős problems results). They have yet to prove capable of forming a novel useful non-trivial concept though.

Won’t announce this on my Twitter for a while, but I’ll be working at OpenAI in San Francisco during the summer.

If any oomfs there are interested in meeting up, lmk!

Anyhow we originally were to classify this as a human-AI collaboration result prior to the new model variant. When it was able to replicate the proof, we then moved it to an autonomous AI result.

I then also formalised my corrected proof in Lean 4. Eventually though, a newer model variant was able to independently reproduce the proof except it made a mistake in the proof of Lemma 2 where it took strict inequalities despite nothing stopping the b_k from being one apart.

It was LaTeX. The proof in the Aletheia Erdős problems paper is actually in fact my proof. We tried the model on a few different Deep Think variants, but none produced a quite right proof, but one gave something right enough that I could see how to fix it to give a correct proof.

Irrationality of rapidly converging series: a problem of Erdős and Graham Answering a question of Erdős and Graham, we show that the double exponential growth condition $\limsup_{n\to\infty}a_n^{1/ϕ^n}=\infty$ for a monotonically increasing sequence of positive integers $\{...

My collaborators and I later generalised Aletheia’s solution to 1051 to give this paper that I’m quite proud of. I think there’s room to push the results further but we haven’t explored it yet. arxiv.org/abs/2601.21442

Thanks! We tried to be be very careful in the announcement of these results. I was pushing for several caveats in this work hah. I like its solution for 1051. I felt confident enough to write this paragraph because it seemed like it was in another class of LLM proofs on the Erdős problems so far.

A new blog post by @acerfur.bsky.social describing his experience as a pioneer of using AI tools to solve Erdős problems:

www.erdosproblems.com/forum/thread...

AI is capable now of generating new interesting mathematics.

But it's much easier for it to generate plausible-sounding nonsense.

I am concerned that the latter, copied and promoted by users with no understanding of the mathematics, is going to drown out the former.

Chat do I go to San Francisco to work on reasoning for mathematics at OpenAI

Sure thing. It’s all here, say:

www.erdosproblems.com/728