10 comments

  • JellyYelly 29 minutes ago
    The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
  • tacomonstrous 16 minutes ago
    Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
  • markasoftware 18 minutes ago
    Author is a crackpot. She does not meaningfully engage with anyone who points out the key flaw in her counterargument. See the thread here https://x.com/AcerFur/status/2083649346294382803
  • OsrsNeedsf2P 31 minutes ago
    Genuine question - this is so hard for me to follow. Not that I could follow the original disproof anyways. But how is "truth" determined when the effort required to validate is so high?
    • gpt5 23 minutes ago
      It's a common problem in math. The famous proof for Fermat's last theorem took 2 years to validate.
      • auggierose 11 minutes ago
        That's different though. Understanding the spec of Fermat's last theorem is simple. Here, you already need to know some mathematics just to understand the spec.
    • kikokikokiko 22 minutes ago
      These AI generated proofs have something akin to the quantum algorithms that can generate a response that would take 1 billion years of processing to finish on a classical computer. How do you test them to see if the result was correct?
  • Tiberium 27 minutes ago
    This "paper" itself is 100% AI-generated...
    • ofjcihen 24 minutes ago
      What makes you say that? Not dunking, I skimmed it (I’m in no way at this level) and didn’t see anything outright Claud-y.
  • auggierose 10 minutes ago
    Opus 5 says the disproof is wrong.
  • toinewx 29 minutes ago
    does this show Lean is not bulletproof?
  • Tiberium 2 minutes ago
    [flagged]