zlacker

>>nl+(OP)
Are you kidding? This is an incredible result. Stuff like this is the most important stuff happening in AI right now. Automated theorem proving? It's not too far to say the entire singular point of the technology was to get us to this.

>>Comple+Kn
This is me being snarky and ignorant, but if it solved one problem and it is automated what’s stopping it from solving all the others? That’s what’s ultimately being sold by the tweet right.

>>ares62+qo
>This is me being snarky and ignorant, but if it solved one problem and it is automated what’s stopping it from solving all the others?

Yeah that's the crux of the matter. How do AI did it? Using already existing math. If we need new math to prove Collatz, Goldbach or Riemman, LLMs are simply SOL. That's what's missing and hype boys always avoid to mention.

>>aeve89+tD
> How do AI did it? Using already existing math. If we need new math to prove Collatz, Goldbach or Riemman, LLMs are simply SOL.

An unproved theorem now proved is by definition new math. Will LLMs get you to Collatz, Goldbach, or Riemann? Unclear.

But it's not like there's some magical, entirely unrelated to existing math, "new math" that was required to solve all the big conjectures of the past. They proceeded, as always, by proving new theorems one by one.

>>dwohni+Er2
Yes, "new math" is neither magical nor unrelated to existing math, but that doesn't mean any new theorem or proof is automatically "new math." I think the term is usually reserved for the definition of a new kind of mathematical object, about which you prove theorems relating it to existing math, which then allows you to construct qualitatively new proofs by transforming statements into the language of your new kind of object and back.

I think eventually LLMs will also be used as part of systems that come up with new, broadly useful definitions, but we're not there yet.