News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A new ceiling for Λ: the de Bruijn–Newman constant.

Re:A new ceiling for Λ: the de Bruijn–Newman constant by steinwinde on Tuesday August 25, 2026 @04:15PM (#49439990)
Anyone interested in the subject area has noticed the recent surge of AI-assisted or generated mathematics. From the outside, it is very hard to see, if AI indeed already speeds up progress in mathematics in general - apart from a number of spectacular results, (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/502120/examples-for-the-u...) - or if the quality of the large majority of these "proofs" is so poor that reviewing them is a waste of time.

I would be grateful, if someone familiar with the situation could say a word about this.

As for the proof in question - I'm not sure the author himself can firmly state he understands every detail of what he presented. In a way it's amusing that people who already enjoy a certain level of recognition outside the field are now using it to find (via shiny websites) reviewers for proofs they have worked out as a hobby using Chat GPT and the like.

What we definitely need is more recognition for those who possess the competence and energy to assess the correctness and relevance of such "results".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new ceiling for Λ: the de Bruijn–Newman constant by koliber on Tuesday August 25, 2026 @04:38PM (#49440267)
In the new world of AI, capable QA will rule the world.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new ceiling for Λ: the de Bruijn–Newman constant by zaik on Tuesday August 25, 2026 @05:11PM (#49440691)
> energy to assess the correctness and relevance of such "results".

The author claims to have a proof in Lean. Checking the correctness of the result is now reduced to checking the definition of the constant.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new ceiling for Λ: the de Bruijn–Newman constant by steinwinde on Tuesday August 25, 2026 @05:27PM (#49440889)
> reduced to checking the definition of the constant

But this doesn't mean the remaining task is small or doesn't ask much from the reviewer, does it?! Otherwise we'd see a considerable turn-out of new findings on https://palomar-registry.org/ or https://github.com/Vilin97/lean-pool , or not?! (A considerable number of the presented proofs claim new results, as far as I can tell.)

[ Parent | on HN ]