Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes release included a Lean 4 formal proof

johndcook.com

161–163 of 163 posts

Re: OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes release included a Lean 4 formal proof

#161

Regarding automatic formalization of proofs using AI, how do we know the formalization doesn't contain errors?

It depends on what you mean by that. In general we hope that the environment and theorum statements are correct. If they are, we know that the formal proof proves the theorum we want. If your asking how we know that the formal proof actually matches the informal proof, we do not.

Re: OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes release included a Lean 4 formal proof

#162

The part that most stood out to me was where Sama said, “we read last week about people trying to solve Millenium problems and so gave it a shot.” One week of work on a whim gives us a math breakthrough. Crazy.

That sounds like PR nonsense to me. These companies have had teams of mathematicians for at least 1.5 years looking to make headlines, and they didn't bother trying all 10 millennium problems? Yeah right.

I mean they might not have tried spending 30 million dollars with a new model yet.

Re: OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes release included a Lean 4 formal proof

#163
post #35

People seem to be talking about anything except the actual results with this particular announcement. Its still astonishing that any sort of generalized computer program can solve a problem of this magnitude, and we have witnessed it happening in real time. I'd be curious to see if the new model can also do more direct proofs/inductive proofs.

Because the core of the issue is that it may well not have solved it, but instead plagiarised the significant step of the result from other researchers That's why nobody's talking about how impressive this is, because its not nearly as impressive of a piece of work to simply cobble together other peoples' work that didn't know you were doing it. I could have republished relativity from einstein's notes, but people wo…

who cares about plagiarism? the biggest issue, as described by Terence Tao, is that AI companies don't understand the math they are publishing and do not devote any resources to answering questions about their methods after publishing results and getting a headline. they miss the whole point of mathematics. they do not contribute to the improvement of human understanding of math, perhaps because they are unable to.
Post reply on HN