Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
111–120 of 681 posts
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no intelligence. If anything, this just shows that natural language and mathematics are both fields which are structured in a logically computable way. And if you have a machine that can compute symbolic logic, you can process both natural language and mathematics. A second corollary is that rational consciousness and thought is less likely to be contained in language than previously thought, because if lang…
If natural language was structured in a logically computable way, we'd have had interesting chatbots by the late 80s, basically as soon as a dictionary fit in local RAM, and for the same reason we got compilers. Da hole raisin y nat-lang be v. hard is dat i kan rite lik dis an it be cool 4 native engrish speekrs 2 unerstand. LLMs are of course fine with this sentence in exactly the way that Zork's engine couldn't be.
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#113Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…
Math isn’t necessarily hard, but it’s incredibly dense
A simple statement like let f(x) be a continuous function can carry a lot of definitions
In that statement, if you missed the day in class where they covered continuous functions it might not even register that it’s a well defined term
And that’s the most over simplistic example I could think of
As a math major, I remember that being one of the first lessons I learned, that every single word could be carrying a lot of weight so to look things up in detail if I was ever struggling on a problem. One of the oldest entries in my memory.md file
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#114"I’ve activated Pro. Can you continue to look for a potential geometric explanation of the X_3 ~ A3 miracle that avoids coordinates or other unmotivated constructions ?" Another satisfied customer!
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#115Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…
Some areas are hard in different ways. I could never quite wrap my head around the way logicians have to think. A clever combinatorial bijection is a work of art you probably can explain to a undergrad class easily but good luck coming up with it. And number theorists will throw the kitchen sink at their problems: no area of math is safe from getting used by them.
People who do this have spent years of their life thinking in this language and studying it, so it is going to be hard. We're also not good at communicating the intuition which for algebraic geometry often comes from other fields.
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#116Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#117"I’ve activated Pro. Can you continue to look for a potential geometric explanation of the X_3 ~ A3 miracle that avoids coordinates or other unmotivated constructions ?" Another satisfied customer!
Came here to flag the same beat. It's wild to me Terrance Tao has to pay to talk to chatgpt, you would think it would be the other way around!
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#118Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#119Yes—for a continuous-time autonomous system
x ˙ =f(x),f(x ∗ )=0,
this is the standard linearization criterion, with J=Df(x ∗ ):
If every eigenvalue of J has strictly negative real part, then x ∗ is locally exponentially asymptotically stable. If at least one eigenvalue has strictly positive real part, then x ∗ is unstable. If no eigenvalue has positive real part but at least one has real part 0, linearization is generally inconclusive. Nonlinear terms or a center-manifold analysis are needed.
The last case really can go either way. For example, all three scalar equations below have Jacobian J=0 at x=0:
x ˙ =−x 3 , x ˙ =x 3 , x ˙ =0.
Yet 0 is respectively asymptotically stable, unstable, and neutrally stable.
A slightly more precise wording is therefore:
If the spectral abscissa
α(J)= λ∈σ(J) max
Reλ
is negative, the equilibrium is locally exponentially stable. If α(J)>0, it is unstable. If α(J)=0, the Jacobian test is inconclusive.
This criterion concerns the Jacobian matrix of a dynamical system at an equilibrium; it is unrelated to the “constant Jacobian determinant” condition in the Jacobian conjecture.
Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample
#120Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…