upvote

points

by cyanydeez4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby abdullahkhalids4 hours ago|
next
[-]
I don't you what you mean. People have used the above harness (or similar) to prove significant results. See this recent paper [1], which claims

> The human authors take full responsibility for the claims and proofs contained in this paper, and have carefully refined and verified them. The construction and main ideas of the proof were generated entirely by Codex using GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra, using harness ideas generated by the authors based on the UCLA Moonshot Harness [ZHC+26] and [Ope26].

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.21551 (Statement on AI usage is at the bottom of page 3).

reply
upvoteby cyanydeez3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
you keep using the term "used the model" or whatever.

A model is non-deterministic. People prove things, LLM string together a bunch of words and do symbol shunting.

Ensure you understand what symbol shunting is before you make claims. https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/76400/what-does-one-...

Real break throughs come from integral mathematics and not just a few reorderings. I've no doubt these are talented people recognizing output as useful; however, every time I see these links presented it's never from the "Prominent mathematician verifies AI proof"

Don't put the cart before the horse if you want people to think LLMs are cracking math problems in real terms.

reply
upvoteby antonvs3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Stringing what together? A sequence of logical implications? The word for that is "proof".
reply
upvoteby cyanydeez3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You mis understand, which is why these articles are so empty. I could find some math starved journal and poblish a bunch of logical implications, but that doesn't mean the logic is sound.

A collection of logical implications <> proof.

reply