traes

7 ms·

1.
by traes 8d ago
Yes, it absolutely is what it shows[0]. I have no idea what data you're looking at that suggests otherwise. Worldwide or in the US, as public individuals or as search terms with quotes or without quotes, over any reasonable timespan, t
2.
by traes 8d ago
> Now, Tao is a sort of a celebrity of the quarter on HN, but I promise you that outside this forum, almost no one has ever heard of him. This is an absurd thing to say. Hacker news is not the only place that knows about the most famous
3.
by traes 8d ago
He was specifically working on the Euler equations, which are the Navier-Stokes equations with the viscosity term removed. This is definitionally a smaller related problem. I'm not sure how you are calling that claim wrong.
4.
by traes 8d ago
Which seems to be entirely true by their own admission! [0] Both the comments about him risking his career and about Levent's authorship seem to have indeed occurred. > 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship
5.
by traes 9d ago
I would assume they are calling the snark from Noam Brown and Dan Roberts bullying, not the somewhat bland denial.
6.
by traes 9d ago
Perhaps out of a sense of academic good will, knowing that he got there first? It seems like the timeline according to OpenAI is that: 1. Buckmaster developed a counterexample to a reduced version of Navier-Stokes with Anthropic employee Le
7.
by traes 9d ago
Because OpenAI employees kept leaking that Anthropic had a solution to Navier-Stokes and he wanted to figure out what was going on, since he was working on Navier-Stokes with an Anthropic employee. The rumor has been loudly circling the mat
8.
by traes 9d ago
The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xca
9.
by traes 9d ago
To be clear, Astra played little part in Buckmaster and Alpoge's work: > We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeu
10.
by traes 9d ago
No. From the paper linked above [0]: > The phase of free fall is predicted in a purely quantum manner to have a dependence m/6 g^2T^3/ℏ + gmzT on the free-fall time T, where m is the mass of the object, g is the gravitational a
11.
by traes 9d ago
Seems like they just added a linear gravitational potential term mgz to their hamiltonian and computed the phase change it would induce. They claim they experimentally confirmed the phase change. I didn't think that worked! They also c
12.
by traes 12d ago
The repo is public. You can just go look! It's really not that surprising; FLT is huge and has a ton of dependencies that need to be implemented, and there's a degree of sloppification that is probably blowing up the size by a few
13.
by traes 12d ago
25-50 seems like a pretty lowball estimate, I guess depending on your definition of "understand."
14.
by traes 12d ago
We have absolutely no idea if this was a brilliant breakthrough or not. They haven't released any explanation of how it was found. A problem being old and prestigious does not mean its solution is automatically a brilliant breakthrough
15.
by traes 12d ago
It's true that his goal was not the full thing, but it was also not merely a Lean verified proof. From the blog post linked in the toptext: > The work certainly achieves some of the aims of the EPSRC project, and indeed it goes much
16.
by traes 17d ago
For clarity: The autumn wind moves slow across the field, and every falling leaf now yields its fight. The summer gold at last has ceased to yield, and short days now give way to longer night. I walk alone beside a calm and quie
17.
by traes 27d ago
Completely off topic, but I really don't understand the demographic of physics educators that are resistant to Dirac notation in a first QM course. It isn't really that hard to explain or understand, it's extraordinarily conv
18.
by traes 28d ago
The title should say (2022)
19.
by traes 28d ago
Very bold title! Turns are very convenient until you need to calculate a rate of change, as of course d/dx sin(2pi x) = 2pi cos(2pi x). Unfortunately this is a common enough problem that I will be sticking with the radian.
20.
by traes 1mo ago
I think the volume explanation is one of the most intuitive pieces of math in existence, personally! Uninvertibility of a tranformation corresponds to a volume of zero because the transformation must squish two dimensions together, leaving
21.
by traes 1mo ago
Note that "done right" means done with Axler's completely subjective and unusual hatred of determinants, chronicled here [0]. It is in no way "done right" in some definitive, rigorous way; most math professors I hav
22.
by traes 1mo ago
This polemic: Sheldon Axler -- Down With Determinants https://www.axler.net/DwD.html A strange and unpopular opinion.
23.
by traes 1mo ago
There was no depth to mathematics in Euler's time, he made the depth. He arguably didn't understand analysis on a technical level as well as a modern undergraduate; as I recall, he was confident that all smooth functions are analy
24.
by traes 1mo ago
How fast do your monkeys type?
25.
by traes 1mo ago
Proof verification can be done automatically via Lean (or similar), so the parallel breaks down unfortunately. The only thing humans really need to verify is the translation of the theorem statement and the correctness of the proof checker.
26.
by traes 1mo ago
> If progress is stuck, the machine turns the gauge away from "exploit" and toward "explore" It sounds like you've answered your own question of: > why "pure mathematics" should persist as a field of
27.
by traes 1mo ago
There's a substantial gap between "the machine is better than human mathematicians" and "the machine can formalize a solution to any problem immediately." Much of the important mathematical theory behind modern scie
28.
by traes 1mo ago
It's speculative fiction written by a professional mathematician about his idea of the worst case scenario of AI's effect on math.
29.
by traes 1mo ago
Out of curiosity, what is the largest C program you have written pre-LLM, and did you ever try to run it through valgrind*? The "oversights" in C tend to be extremely subtle and dangerous, and of a type that would be impossible to
30.
by traes 1mo ago
Do you really think current LLMs can implement a large application in C as securely as they can in e.g. Go? I will freely admit that I have not tried to do so but I have a hard time imagining it. Perhaps my biases are outdated...

More ›