Live data from Hacker News

A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

terrytao.wordpress.com

61–70 of 150 posts

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#61

Okay. So what does this overturn, intuitively? Can we no longer assume that functions are differentiable at certain points, or something?

It overturns the Jacobian conjecture (i.e., speculation) for dim >= 3, which we now know was an overgeneralization. Tao characterizes it as "can be viewed as an assertion that local invertibility implies global invertibility". It was already widely suspected to be false. Assuming that it was true was never warranted, so this really doesn't change anything. The significance is that an AI was able to find a relatively simple counterexample. Its "chain of thought" would be very interesting to see.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#62

Okay. So what does this overturn, intuitively? Can we no longer assume that functions are differentiable at certain points, or something?

I'm not a mathematian but I know enough linear algebra and vector calculus to understand the conjecture. This is my interpretation:

Firstly, the determinant of the Jacobian is measuring if at any point the function is crushing space / flattening out.

If the Jacobian is a nonzero constant everywhere this means that nowhere does the the function flatten out. A small change in X along any line will always produce a non zero change in Y. Not flattening out means that locally you can invert it.

What was conjectured is that this local invertibability property everywhere would mean global invertibility.

Turns out to not be the case.

For a simple case, the falsified conjecture is trivially true in 1D.

Specifically consider f(x) = x^2

This function happens to flatten out right at x=0. At that x coodrinate the function flattens out and folds over on itself. This fold means you can't invert x^2. It's also not locally invertible around x=0.

If a function f(x) has constant derivative evewhere then it would flatten out nowhere and it would be invertible everwhere. It would also be globally invertible.

The Jacobian conjecture was stating that the extension of this property holds in higher dimensions. That if the function had no fold in space then it would be invertible globally.

The counterexample shows that you can create a simple function in 3 variables, where the function demonstratably is invertible evewhere, but is not injective globally (they specifically show 3 points that map to the same output).

What's interesting is this is like if someone showed you a parabola where somehow you got back to the same y coordinate without a kink bending over back to itself.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#63
post #28

reading through this I eventually realized a situation similar to my experience of it is what my dog sees if I attempt to explain Python programming to him.

The difference is your dog will never understand the Python code but you could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks if you really wanted to. Can we all please stop acting like this Terry guy is so special?

Goats though, they get it. Bang your head against a monitor until things start working.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#65
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s famous, but I don’t believe he is a celebrity, as he is not famous for his persona.

I just mean, anything Tao writes that is related to AI will get on the front page, because Tao represents the authoritative voice of reason using AI tools. And this website is primarily for AI news.

>And this website is primarily for AI news.

'twas not always thus ):

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#66
post #28

reading through this I eventually realized a situation similar to my experience of it is what my dog sees if I attempt to explain Python programming to him.

The difference is your dog will never understand the Python code but you could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks if you really wanted to. Can we all please stop acting like this Terry guy is so special?

I certainly do not think that the average HN reader "could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks". I think the level of background information you need is something like an undergraduate degree in mathematics and at many universities that's probably not enough either.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#67
post #59

> While this is an extremely quick verification, the construction presented in this fashion appears like a massive miracle. The polynomial {F} has degree seven, so a priori the Jacobian {\mathrm{det} DF} ought to be a polynomial in three variables of degree as large as {3 \times 6 = 18}, so the fact that all non-constant coefficients of this polynomial vanish looks like a massive cancellation involving {\binom{18+3}{…

I was reading another source that claimed this example was inspired by an existing (rational polynomial) example from the literature (created in 1999 by a Russian mathematician Vitushkin). > The seed is almost certainly Vitushkin's old rational "counterexample." From https://claude.ai/share/22abed98-d9af-43c5-9881-b19e009a07b0 This is not quite lore laundering, but it seems to be close.

I still can't understand all the details, but it's very interesting to read that chat. Anyway, instead of close to lore laundering, for me it's "standing on the shoulder of giants".

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#68

Okay. So what does this overturn, intuitively? Can we no longer assume that functions are differentiable at certain points, or something?

I'm not a mathematian but I know enough linear algebra and vector calculus to understand the conjecture. This is my interpretation: Firstly, the determinant of the Jacobian is measuring if at any point the function is crushing space / flattening out. If the Jacobian is a nonzero constant everywhere this means that nowhere does the the function flatten out. A small change in X along any line will always produce a non…

Thanks, I was curious for the motivation behind the conjecture, but it wasn’t mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this news came out I amused myself by asking Claude to prove that 0.999... != 1. First it did so for the hyperreals. To do it for the reals I had to tell it it was allowed to make mistakes, although it didn't end up interestingly wrong - just very fuzzy and vague.

Actually it's not true for the hyperreals either, though this is a common misconception. It's extremely easy for me to believe that an llm would produce a "proof" and that people would fall for it.

I don't know if I fell for it - my response was "LOL, I sure can't tell you if this one is right or wrong". I guess that makes it more convincing than the proof for the reals.

Re: A digestion of the Jacobian conjecture counterexample

#70
post #34

Can we audit the CoT and work the AI did to generate such a remarkable cancellation?

I doubt Anthropic will share the details (or at least the full true details). The mystery of the magic makes for much better marketing. I think a reasonable assumption is that there is an interaction between an LLM, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system tool, a human prompting with deep math expertise, and lots of compute that explains hitting upon the remarkable cancellation.

Yeah more or less. I proved a SOTA result using Gemini 3.1 Pro a year ago and it was a lot of back and forth.

We're definitely still in the computer chess phase.

Post reply on HN