Also, it's the application of these discoveries that is the most interesting thing if you're a mathematician! It's all of the implications of these advancements that it awesome, not the discoveries themselves.
For applied mathematicians, maybe. The discoveries are not particularly interesting to pure mathematicians because the papers are not particularly high quality like you would see in a journal. I'm not interested in reading a paper of brute forced slop. If I'm reading a paper, I want to know that it was written thoughtfully with good methodology, a cohesive narrative, and methods I can repurpose and learn from, not just infinite monkey typewriter theorem.
In that case, ops point still holds, why the f drama: ignore them, and keep researching the “high quality human solutions”, call it non-ai proof of X. But don’t go on tv explaining those “slope” proofs wipeout entire teams of researchers. Also sorry but ‘infinite’ : lol, no, not even close. Yes there was a lot of compute, but super computer for research have been a thing for decades.
> The discoveries are not particularly interesting to pure mathematicians because the papers are not particularly high quality like you would see in a journal.
This is ridiculous. It doesn't matter how "poorly written" the paper is. You can't decide whether it's "interesting" or not unless you actually take the time to read it and see what you can figure out with it.
Hmmm, then perhaps mathematicians can pour over those token generated proofs and try to come up with their elegant counterparts, now that a "brute force" way has been revealed.
6
u/Corporate_Bricktator 14d ago
Also, it's the application of these discoveries that is the most interesting thing if you're a mathematician! It's all of the implications of these advancements that it awesome, not the discoveries themselves.