10 ms·
Their rules PDF says they won't accept any solution until at least two years after publication in a qualifying outlet. This allows time for the mathematical com
by Legend2440 5d ago
Their rules PDF says they won't accept any solution until at least two years after publication in a qualifying outlet. This allows time for the mathematical community to review and accept new results.
As the OpenAI proof hasn't been officially published yet, the clock hasn't started ticking.
- auggierose 5d agoThe Lean proof is published, you can download it. The clock definitely is ticking. Edit: Oh, didn't see the "qualifying outlet" condition. But Poincare was ever just put on arXiv, so arXiv must count as well.
- raegis 5d agoIf I recall (too lazy to check) folks made slight improvements to Perelman's work and published it in mainstream journals, satisfying the "qualifying outlet" requirement.
- mr_mitm 5d agoI checked, you're right, but I think it's important to note that the prize did go to Perelman and he declined to accept.
- adastra22 5d agoPublish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.
- deleted 5d ago[deleted]
- auggierose 5d agoAccepted by whom? Peer-reviewed by whom? I guess these little questions are what this article is really about.
- d0mine 5d ago> “The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI.”
- auggierose 5d ago[flagged]
- athrowaway3z 5d agoBy peers. Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. The cultural/social question you might ask today is "why (keep) them?". At which point people will naturally ask you to make a strong case for "why not them?".
- thaumasiotes 5d ago> The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. Huh? We're about six decades past that moment.
- auggierose 5d ago> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
- da_chicken 5d agoAmongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?
- wokwokwok 5d ago
- fc417fc802 5d agoI run this journal that you've never heard of that might interest you. I'd also like to invite you to be an editor, you can put it on your CV of course ...
- deleted 5d ago[deleted]
- aaron695 5d ago[dead]
- Razengan 5d agoSeems like artificial and maybe bitter gatekeeping
- AnimalMuppet 5d agoFor giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard.
- pred_ 5d agoAnd just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
- karmakurtisaani 4d agoThis is a good reminder for the generation grown up in the era of trust-me-bro benchmarks.
- limagnolia 4d agoBeing normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases. That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.
- AnimalMuppet 4d ago"Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"
- 4d ago
- CGMthrowaway 4d agohttps://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
- adastra22 4d agoNot sure what your point is? When they say published they mean peer review. Regardless of what you think about publication, that's what it means.
- qlte 4d agoUnless you're suggesting they should change the existing qualification criteria to accommodate a group unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, I'm not sure why that's relevant.
- moffkalast 5d agoAnyone can put anything on arxiv, it counts the same as printing it on tissue paper.
- setopt 5d agoNot really. It's not peer reviewed, but it's also not a free-for-all repository. If you make a new account, you either have to get someone to vouch for you, or you have to wait arXiv mods to look carefully through your first few preprints. If you are found to post pseudoscience, overly fringe theories, etc., you'll get banned from arXiv; that's why alternative repositories like vixRa.org popped up. But I know why you think this; when I first joined arXiv many years, there were no such checks in place, at least not that I can remember.
- mr_mitm 5d agoI also don't remember checks, but I believe that having an email address of an approved organization was enough to pass.
- whateverboat 4d agoNo. You do have checks, it's just that once you publish 4-5 papers, 99% of your field is open to you so you never have to do the checks again.
- aeve890 5d ago>Anyone Strangely enough, the crackpots seems to prefer vixra.org to publish their work. I've never seen something like "4D wormholes can cure cancer" in ArXiv
- fasterik 5d agoI think the rules technically exclude the arXiv as a qualifying outlet. Without limiting any other provision in this Section, a publication lacking any of the following characteristics will be deemed not to be a Qualifying Outlet: i. an editorial board whose members are named and available for contact; ii. an editor or editorial board member whose professional knowledge of the global mathematics community would enable him or her to identify an appropriate referee to review a submitted paper; iii. a published refereeing process that, in the opinion of CMI, ensures that a submitted paper is reviewed and verified by appropriate experts in the field of the Problem; or iv. inclusion in the list of publications maintained by MathSciNet. The solution to the Poincaré conjecture was only accepted after an exposition of Perelman's proof was published in a refereed journal. His papers didn't qualify, but of course he got the credit for the result.
- baby 5d agoIt’s easy to verify the lean statement, you don’t need to read the proof. That is part of the breakthrough
- rramadass 5d agoIf the Lean initial-problem-setup/statements/assumptions/etc. aren't correct then the proof is meaningless. Lean does not know what it is that it is proving i.e. it does not have any semantic understanding but only executes formal logic. Humans need to verify everything.
- phtrivier 5d agoAlso, and sorry if it's been discussed to death (pointers welcome), but, what is the probability that the proof holds in lean becaude of... A bug in lean ?
- eru 5d agoSomeone made a 'proof' of the Collatz conjecture that way in Lean. However if the prove relies on a bug like that, you'll be able to 'simplify' the proof a lot and you'll be able to proof contradictions.
- thaumasiotes 5d ago> However if the prove relies on a bug like that, you'll be able to 'simplify' the proof a lot and you'll be able to proof contradictions. I don't think this is true in general. It's an issue I've already run into in personal work. I want to do a proof that involves some cases. It happens to the best of us. In lean, the structure of a situation like this is that your single branch with a goal divides into multiple branches, all sharing the same original goal but including one additional premise that defines the branch. Sometimes I know that for whatever reason one case I have to deal with is impossible. The most correct way to show that is to prove False and then apply False.elim. This is the equivalent, in a human proof, of saying "I don't have to address this situation, because it can never arise". But it can be true that the premise defining the impossible case makes it very easy to "prove" the goal directly. And that's allowed too. The proof will still be just as valid if you map a logical path from a premise that can never be true to an inevitable consequence of that premise. But it's less informative and it lowers the quality of the proof. You may do it anyway because it's easier. This is the equivalent of saying "I don't know whether this situation can ever come up or not, but if it does I do know how to address it". It would be nice to do the explicit proof by contradiction whenever possible. But in the general case it may be very far from obvious that a contradiction is possible. I read your comment as claiming that if you can prove "false premise => goal", you can also prove "false premise => explicit contradiction", and I don't think this makes sense as a practical test. It's true in some sense, but discovering the proof of an explicit contradiction may be many orders of magnitude harder than discovering the proof of the goal. And in particular, I don't think it is necessarily the case that you will be able to prove a contradiction by simplifying the proof. You may need to add significant complexity.
- TMWNN 5d ago> Their rules PDF says they won't accept any solution until at least two years after publication in a qualifying outlet. A similar rule existed for the 100-year Wolfskehl prize established in 1906 for solving Fermat's last theorem; two years after publication.
- eru 5d agoI'm not sure it actually makes a difference. OpenAI doesn't care about the million dollars in any case. And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. Though it would be funny if no one ever bothers publishing the result in an appropriate journal, and thus the prize technically can never be claimed.
- c7b 5d agoEven funnier that it wouldn't even be the first time that happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman
- thrance 5d agoAnd he also gave up his trophy, which is displayed in a random corridor of a random math museum in Paris, where visitors pass by without looking, lacking most, if not all, of the context. Only because I knew the story and the man did I recognize the object for what it was.
- peacefullmind 5d agowhere is it displayed , in which museum ? As a mathematician it would be cool to visit it, but I can't find anything on google.
- yen223 5d agoIt's very likely that no one will claim any of the cash prizes, which is funny to me
- pred_ 5d agoAnd chances are they never will publish it in any kind of useful format. Right now, the scientific community is outraged at OpenAI for going about their announcement in the least productive fashion they could have. It really does seem like they have no interest in progressing our understanding of maths outside of mining it for marketing material.
- stbede 4d agoBoo hoo. OpenAI got the result only days ago. It makes perfect sense for them to take the win in marketing, and it's fine if they take a few months putting together the paper and present it more productively later. The scientific community didn't get the result themselves, so it isn't theirs to be bossing everyone else around about. I don't care much for AI myself, or smart phones either, for that matter. I would be content if NS remained a mystery for another 100 years - or forever. But goodness, does the "scientific community" need to take a deep breath and count down from 10.
- soVeryTired 4d agoWas it a marketing win though? My takeaway is: if you're doing groundbreaking work with openAI's models and they find out, at best they'll outspend you and scoop you. At worst they'll steal your chat history.
- stbede 4d agoThat's a completely different matter. And does it matter to my point if they were successful or not? That's ex-post analysis. It seems clear that ex-ante, they wanted this to be a marketing win. The original poster complained that they wanted a marketing win. My point is: why shouldn't they want a marketing win from this. What obligation does a non-academic institution have to follow the traditions of academia? Its result doesn't belong to academia. And if academia wants to subject OpenAI to their own internal processes and give them marching orders, it just isn't going to work and maybe - who knows - it'll even further erode their own legitimacy. Does anyone actually believe that NS would have been resolved in the 2020's if we lived in a parallel world where LLM's were never invented? Would Buckmaster have gotten as far as he did without LLM's doing a lot of the work for him? We can complain about AI companies contributing to mathematics, but are we complaining about Terence Tao using AI in his research? When Tao publishes something are we all going to go to war against him because maybe other mathematicians' prompts went into training the AI that Tao used?