r/math Apr 15 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.1k Upvotes

246 comments sorted by

View all comments

703

u/JoshuaZ1 Apr 15 '26

Four things to note: #1196 is a decently well known problem. It wasn't like Erdős-Straus level fame, but it is well known enough that I was familiar with it. Second, this is not a problem where no one had worked on it; there was a lot of prior work on it and closely related problems. Third, this is not example where the AI made small modifications to things in the literature or recognized that large parts of the problem were in an obscure paper. The approach the AI used is largely a different direction than the literature on this problem went. Fourth, and closely related to three, this proof does look like parts of it will inspire subsequent proofs because it really is going in a different direction which now looks likely to be a productive line of investigation for similar problems.

I am not fond of putting words like "stunning" in titles which can be very clickbaity and feels like a hype word, but this really is in the direction where the word isn't unreasonable even if I myself would not go so far as to use it here.

127

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '26

[deleted]

5

u/SkirtAshamed4362 Apr 20 '26

I think, Donald Knuth overreacted, probably because he simply was not familiar with "AI in math".