Is "loving math for maths sake" just about knowing the answers? I think one can love math for exactly the process and understanding that a several-thousand-line uncommented Lean proof denies. If a deity rearranged the stars to spell out "The Riemann hypothesis is false" for a night, would that be intellectually sufficient?
replyNo that's not sufficient but that's not what's happening.
replyWhy do we believe that we cannot train models which could explain the jargon in more human terms when current LLMs can perfectly explain the most complicated codebases?
deleted
replythe way LLMs write math is not beautiful. it is exactly analogous to the software that LLMs develop is not beautiful. it may achieve impressive end products, but if you like understanding the methods/architecture, looking under the hood is often a field of horrors.
replyYou feel lean4 proof, that you 99.999% chance not understand is beautiful?
replyreply
How many humans on earth have finished reading this 100+ page PDF and actually appreciate the beauty contained therein (or the lack of beauty)?
reply