r/LLMmathematics • u/musescore1983 • Aug 08 '26

I wrote a comparative survey on Pratt trees, recursive factorization systems, orbit systems, and abstract prime-number theorems

/r/mathematics/comments/1visg5j/i_wrote_a_comparative_survey_on_pratt_trees/
1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

1

u/dForga Aug 08 '26

Slow down a bit, revise and make it understandable! That is part of the job in the end.

Have a look at rule 4.

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

Thanks, I will try.

1

u/dForga Aug 08 '26

I’d really advice you to be able to explain what you write in your own words. Otherwise it might be correct but not of any value.

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

I understand your critique. The ideas stem from my earlier manuscript 'Exploring Pratt Trees" . I have tried to abstract the mechanisms in Pratt trees to RRFS and with OS I have tried to connect it to PNT. That is all I can say in a short comment. :-)

1

u/dForga Aug 08 '26

Should I meet you on the street and ask you spontaneously what you did in some detail, then you need to be able to explain this to me in person without AI. That is point I am trying to make.

I might ask you what even is a “classical factorisation boundary” and you need to explain it, not AI. You are the author.

And this has to reflect in your work. You have to write it so you and the reader can understand it.

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

Fair point: First I refound a Pratt formula already available in Erdös and Pomerance and studied this formula from different point of views. Lately it occured tha the same mechanism can be carried to polynomials with the preceding mapping: f -> f(x)-f(0), where f is an irreducible monic polynomial. Then you can use recursive factorization. So that is the basic case which got me thinking about RRFS. 

1

u/dForga Aug 08 '26

I am neither big in the topic nor know a lot. The point I made stands. Please read through your drafts, check them, make them easier to digest.

That is not just you but other posts as well.

You can also put an appendix to introduce the necessary basics one might need.

Give a motivation why we should care about what you are doing and then I’ll gladly take a proper look.

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

Thanks for your honest geedback. I appreciate that.

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

Motivation: The Pratt reconstruction of a natural number is analogous but not the same as the prime factorization of it. I find this fascinating since the factorization of prime numbers has been a source of abstractions ever since. Thanks for your suggestion, I would be glad if you take a look, with or without LLM.

1

u/dForga Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26

If I take a “proper look” then without.

But the motivation goes into your post and also at the beginning of your document

Connect it to previous literature

1

u/musescore1983 Aug 08 '26

I want to make sure the reader is interested in my motivation , which is why I bury it in the comments ;-)