81–90 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the people growing their food built modern civilization. (Or millions of disconnected stakeholders with different incentives collectively built modern civilization, but who wants to put that on a bumper sticker)
No people procreating built civilization.
Some of the claimed proofs (#129, #130) seem to have been removed at the Erdős Problems site. Were they defective?
Some of the claimed proofs (#129, #130) seem to have been removed at the Erdős Problems site. Were they defective?
tbf I am not able to understand the erdos problem website, as to why it still shows problems as open even if they've (as claimed) claimed to be solved
Very interesting, on many levels: first, the raw additional compute / search harness is worth reading about; huge numbers of Lean 4 theorems, thousands of vCPUs available for spreading out search, embedding databases of proofs, all very interesting. Second, the proofs -- I understand the Lean 4 proofs to be refereed by Fable, and generated by Chat 5.6 Sol. Unlike the leaked proof of the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture…
This is great feedback (thank you for taking the time), & you especially bring up a fair point on the writeups needing to be more human readable. I'll work on that
Some of the claimed proofs (#129, #130) seem to have been removed at the Erdős Problems site. Were they defective?
1) For #129 a couple people pointed out that the report was very confusing. And I agree. So I'm currently attempting to improve it.
2) For #130, a person pointed it out as being a partial solution. This seems correct, so I'm currently working on making it fully end to end.
These are put out as "proposed solutions" for the mathematics community to scrutinize, and the scrutiny worked exactly like it should. Happy to take any feedback and make them better.
Some of the claimed proofs (#129, #130) seem to have been removed at the Erdős Problems site. Were they defective?
Thank you for bringing this up pfdietz. No, not defective. The Lean proofs behind both are machine-checked and unchanged. I withdrew them over framing, not correctness. 1) For #129 a couple people pointed out that the report was very confusing. And I agree. So I'm currently attempting to improve it. 2) For #130, a person pointed it out as being a partial solution. This seems correct, so I'm currently working on makin…