zlacker

> one should consider math toast within the next 10-15 years.

I keep a list of ridiculously failed predictions, and this goes into it.

Can I ask you to be more concrete? What does "math is toast" mean to you?

>>emil-l+(OP)
I'd like to see some other instances from your list.

>>emil-l+(OP)
In the sense that in 15 years my bet is that an AI system can solve my thesis problem for under 100$

https://ems.press/journals/jems/articles/14298293

>>vatsac+ea3
Math is toast if a computerized system can solve a problem you personally failed to solve during your PhD?

Computers have proved stuff people couldn't since at least 1976 when Appel and Haken proved the 4-color theorem.

>>emil-l+bD3
The paper I linked is the problem I solved for my thesis, which was published in JEMS (upper echelon journal). I spent 8 hours a day for one and a half years working on it. 75% of mathematicians don't have a theorem that good, but the Terry Taos of the world get a theorem like that every year.

My claim is that in 15 years an AI system will be able to prove it from first principles for under 100 dollars. That would render us normal mathematicians toast.

>>emil-l+bD3
That computers can be used to perform long calculations is nothing novel. That is literally what they were designed to do.

The 4 color theorem was proven because humans actually did the math and discovered a way to simplify the problem enough for them to write a program that proves it. The proof wasn't discovered by a computer. The proof was discovered by the people who wrote that program. There was no machine learning involved.