41–50 of 88 posts
Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
[flagged]
> Undergrad who hasn’t passed his first semester yet
Not sure what you’re talking about. According to his wiki bio he’s done two years at Cambridge. He posted Maths questions from the 1B tripos exam, and was smart enough to get an OpenAI internship.
Whereas it seems like the author of this paper has never been hired anywhere by any company or institution — the "Center for Topological Physics" listed seems to exist only as a website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you say that? Not dunking, I skimmed it (I’m in no way at this level) and didn’t see anything outright Claud-y.
This immediately struck me as Claud-y: > The gap has two independent consequences, each sufficient to invalidate the claimed disproof. The first is structural. Then the classic coding agents negation of earlier evidence, instaed of just updating to use new references, they mention that they changed old to new: > The publicly released monolithic file ConnesRigidity.lean (37,000+ lines) does not use the names CocycleEx…
So this is the level of science discourse now? AI really broke people's minds. If it's true or not, it will be eventually proved or not. Name calling really is the best you all can do?
The author of this paper has also apparently published a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. yeah idk if they should be trusted as an authority on this.
Maybe there's an error, but much of this write-up reads like nonsense to me. The assertion that a semidirect product with an abelian factor must admit that factor in its center is absolutely false. This is actually acknowledged later in this article, but is handwaved away in incomprehensible fashion.
Opus 5 says the disproof is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a common problem in math. The famous proof for Fermat's last theorem took 2 years to validate.
That's different though. Understanding the spec of Fermat's last theorem is simple. Here, you already need to know some mathematics just to understand the spec.