7 ms·
I’ve been math-vibe coding a few months now. It’s surprisingly easy to do with AI. The hard part has been manually verifying and validating the results. I took
by ibarrajo 2mo ago
I’ve been math-vibe coding a few months now.
It’s surprisingly easy to do with AI. The hard part has been manually verifying and validating the results. I took one of the smaller findings (disproving a conjecture) and wrote a paper as my first endeavor into publishing.
Because the next few findings i have in the pipeline are substantial in the field of quantum topology and physics im taking some time to publish them with a ton of scrutiny. And verification has taken more time than it did to make the discoveries.
Here’s my first piece if anybody is interested in number theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09793 https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09793
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- danabramov 2mo agoHow much do you try to understand while doing it? I.e. how many levels of abstraction down in your own understanding do you go vs vibing at the surface level?
- igravious 2mo agoi'm doing the same thing but for type theory
- potsandpans 2mo agoThis is very interesting to me. Care to share your process?
- igravious 2mo agoone agent to write the C code, one agent to write the Agda code, and an agent to bridge the two and make sure that the C code does what the Agda code says it does. https://gitlab.com/igravious/lettuce.git https://gitlab.com/igravious/lettuce.git
- potsandpans 2mo agoSounds cool. Your repo might be private, I can't view it.
- physicsguy 2mo agoI'm a phyicist by training and have published in the past but I left academia and so haven't for a number of years now. I tried out using Claude to do some physics problem solving - mix of maths and simulation - and ended up with it getting in quite a mess. It's incredible at setting things up, suggesting approaches you might not have considered. I found it much much worse at interpreting things.