upvote

points

by briansmith17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby rfurmani16 hours ago|
next
[-]
I'm one of those two, as mentioned later in the post! As it stands, by mathematical standards, it would be inappropriate for us to be authors on the paper since our role was more like a highly interested referee, but we do take mathematical accountability for it. This all happened very quickly, but we will be sure to continue to polish the paper and make it ready for publication.
reply
upvoteby arjie17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The full paragraph quoted for other readers is:

> Two mathematicians at Anthropic studied and validated Claude’s paper, and produced an informal note for experts stating Claude’s proof concisely. Claude also produced a formally verifiable proof of its result. We are grateful to Brian Conrey and Dan Goldston, two experts in this area, who generously examined the paper on short notice.

They may wish to know that an archive of the page on 2026-08-10 at 17:47:33 is available with this paragraph here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260810174733/https://www.anthr...

reply
upvoteby math_dandy17 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Levent Alpöge and Ralph Furman, two of Anthropic’s own mathematicians, examined Claude’s work to understand the new results and how they related to the prior work mentioned above.
reply
upvoteby briansmith17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Are they the authors of the “informal note” or not?

I’ve never seen a math paper of any formality written without the authors’ names on it before.

reply
upvoteby 17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby fph16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Anthropic seems to be challenging the traditional way math gets published. As far as I understand, these results did not get submitted to journals, and did not get Arxiv preprints; they are released only as self-hosted pdfs, and we don't even know the names of their authors.

The canonical reference for the counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is a tweet with no puntuations nor capitals.

reply
upvoteby jsnell15 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
As far as I can tell, Arxiv does not allow an AI to be listed as the author, so publishing there would not have been an option.

https://blog.arxiv.org/2023/01/31/arxiv-announces-new-policy...

reply
upvoteby fph4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The current consensus in mathematical publishing is that LLMs are tools, so they don't get listed among the authors. But nothing would have prevented them from posting these preprints on Arxiv, with the human prompters as authors and the LLM's contribution acknowledged in the text.
reply
upvoteby wbl16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I've cited letters from Serre to Tate in my dissertation: this is the source for what's known as Faltings-Serre.
reply