11–20 of 82 posts
With how AI works fundamentally, wouldn't you still need to verify the results generated by AI? Doesn't seem like an applicable field for it, at least in its current state.
Things have moved on since then, as artificial intelligence has started being used in formalisation, [...] With how AI works fundamentally, wouldn't you still need to verify the results generated by AI? Doesn't seem like an applicable field for it, at least in its current state.
The top answer helped me to understand.
> Presumably an AI would formalise the proof in a system such as Lean, then you only need to trust the kernel of that proof system.
Things have moved on since then, as artificial intelligence has started being used in formalisation, [...] With how AI works fundamentally, wouldn't you still need to verify the results generated by AI? Doesn't seem like an applicable field for it, at least in its current state.
Things have moved on since then, as artificial intelligence has started being used in formalisation, [...] With how AI works fundamentally, wouldn't you still need to verify the results generated by AI? Doesn't seem like an applicable field for it, at least in its current state.
What can be proven depends on what is allowed be a part of mathematics and logic. Zero, negative numbers, imaginary numbers and a lot other stuff had go through the acceptance first before they can be used in proofs. A lot of foundational concepts in logic, reality, causality, boolean exclusivity, spatial locality - had to be rewritten due to advances in quantum physics etc.
This is hard to understand. This element of the "proof" is named "Conjecture 3.12". Isn't that enough by itself to demonstrate that there is no proof? If there was a proof, Conjecture 3.12 would be a theorem, not a conjecture.
Well he sounds like an arsehole either way...
This has been going on for 13 years. The difficulty on understanding the Inter-universal Teichmüller theory (valid or not) is it's all based on his Inter-universal geometry framework that only he and a handful of his students understand. So the work can't be peer-reviewed.
He has been offered to travel to work with other high level mathematicians to lecture them about his framework so other people can understand it but he has refused. He rarely travels (if at all) and he's very private, and doesn't even have lunch with his colleagues.
And I would speculate he sometimes disappear of the public eye, as he even has a section on his personal web site to notify he's alive [0].
I haven't asked friends in a couple years, but in math research centers the feelings were 'meh'. That there were probably some interesting things there, but it was going to be impossible to take something out of it unless something changes with Mochizuki or his students.
--
0: https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/anpi-kakunin-jouhou.html