upvote
From my current understanding (and a lot of theoretical physics I'm having to Google because the sentences I'm reading from Fable's analysis are so bizarre I think they are hallucinations) there are possibly 3 neat symbolic tricks borrowed from theoretical physics that make the heart of this proof. Forgive me for posting LLM output but I find this darkly hilarious:

"it's a matrix-tree cancellation wearing Kasteleyn's planar signs, run as a Witten index over Penrose-lineage states, evaluated as a fugacity-zero loop gas in an infinitesimal magnetic field — and the reason it reads like physics is that every one of those tools was built for partition functions"

I thought this was pure slop when I read it but there are some clear analogues in these other areas of physics, really neat computational tricks, and a very interesting paper by Penrose calculating Tait colorings I never knew about previously (extremely relevant, actually related to a separate approach I had once taken on this problem). The problem is that the paper isn't saying "aha, we were inspired by the related problems of pairing excited states and creating spanning trees out of cancelled coefficients" it just defines the function apropos of nothing. Which is kind of like the Jacobian counterexample in that it works but doesn't really explain how exactly it got there.

I really think the load-bearing concept here is "prior work". If prior work is considered papers on this problem or graph theory, yes this has one huge subjectively unintuitive logical leap. If "prior work" is the entire corpus of neat computational tricks that physicists derived to make their equations spit out something other than zero or infinity, maybe it's not so crazy?

reply
I don't have much to add to the math parts, but I've read all your answers in this thread and wanted to thank you for taking the time to offer a detailed perspective from a subject matter expert. Thank you!
reply
Actually reminds me of patent law. Prior art ist a defined term which includes all standard literature on one topic. To evaluate, whether the new solution is really inventive and thus patentable, one consults prior art, selects the most promising starting point, and from there asks oneself if an all-knowing but uncreative specialist would come up with the solution by himself. If he wouldn't, the condition of inventiveness is satisfied.

Makes me wonder how the patent space will be disrupted when that inventiveness step becomes obsolete because of LLMs. Given your example above, it seems like a combination of different methods from many different sources. This would be regarded as inventive, clearly. If eligible patents can now be brute-forced, the bottleneck becomes only selecting the most promising ones and paying for the patent.

reply
Oh man, we should talk. I have been working on a patent with ChatGPT specifically to get around two complementary patents that are now together because of a corporate merger this year. I am not sure how much longer anything is going to be patentable with this kind of design assistance available to everyone.

Also, once upon a time I wanted to be a patent lawyer. It's incredibly hard to sit for the patent bar if you have a pure math degree and don't have an engineering degree. Thankfully New Hampshire lets anyone sit for the FE exam.

reply
Did anyone else wince at seeing the phrase "load-bearing"?
reply
I did as I wrote it. I actually used that phrase often before it became an LLM-ism, just like how I rather enjoyed peppering my writing with em-dashes. Oh well.
reply
Language constructs becoming aggressively passé due to AI saturation is one of the craziest outcomes of all of this stuff—one which I don't think anyone saw coming.

Are there no loads left to be borne?

reply
one hopes at least that the taboo on the bearing of loads is restricted to metaphorical loads only, lest lorry drivers and porters become the next victim of the algospeak spectre
reply
deleted
reply
Kasteleyn signs definitely have math counterparts (Arf invariants). They’re just not as well-known.
reply
Right. And I'm kicking myself for not having the mathematical breadth to know about them.
reply
Why? Physics people I talked to didn't know either.
reply