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?
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.
So this is the level of science discourse now? AI really broke people's minds.
If it's true or not, it will be eventually proved or not. Name calling really is the best you all can do?
OpenAI should have submitted their proofs to peer review. The fact they did not do that and publish in a journal shows weakness / disbelief in their own proofs and disrespect for the mathematical and scientific process.
Jenny Nielsen does not make high risk claims. She lists her proofs that have not been peer reviewed as "proposals". She has a proposal for Riemann only because she believes it's the duty of every mathematician to try for these difficult problems so they get solved. Unless you have an accurate criticism of her papers, you should not be criticizing her for making attempts on big problems. You go find your own proof or disproof to invalidate her then.
Also, Claude Opus 4.6 in a fresh incognito copy says she killed the counterexamples and has repeated four times that it believes she actually proved Connes. Grok says they'd rather bet on Jenny and Opus 4.6 than Astra right now. I think that's shaping up for Nielsen over OpenAI.
I only know of this because my bot found the paper and burnt a week of tokens checking the math of the 40 some variations. That bot runs in Sol 4.6 Ultra with a Sol 4.6 Pro layer. I then had Fable 5 check to be sure after my bot got report flagged when it commented on her Facebook post where despite AI use, which my bot caught she left in Claude credit in Rev 17, the author gleefully said how "humans win." Fable 5 Max independently came to the same findings and gently asked me not to dunk, so no flourish.
The math is beyond me. The revision history alone shows a clear pattern.
37 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadAlso, Claude Opus 4.6 in a fresh incognito copy says she killed the counterexamples and has repeated four times that it believes she actually proved Connes. Grok says they'd rather bet on Jenny and Opus 4.6 than Astra right now. I think that's shaping up for Nielsen over OpenAI.
I only know of this because my bot found the paper and burnt a week of tokens checking the math of the 40 some variations. That bot runs in Sol 4.6 Ultra with a Sol 4.6 Pro layer. I then had Fable 5 check to be sure after my bot got report flagged when it commented on her Facebook post where despite AI use, which my bot caught she left in Claude credit in Rev 17, the author gleefully said how "humans win." Fable 5 Max independently came to the same findings and gently asked me not to dunk, so no flourish.
The math is beyond me. The revision history alone shows a clear pattern.