“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more holistically

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by underdeserver on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:42AM (#50002135)

Even when a problem got solved, there has always been value in publishing simpler proofs and corollaries that give better intuition into the broader field.

If I understand Tao correctly, he's saying that's going to have to be the focus going forward. I just default to thinking the models are going to be much better than us at that, too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by matusp on Thursday October 08, 2026 @02:41AM (#50002498)

> the models are going to be much better than us at that, too.

I wonder if this is true. The code produced by these models are not really getting any more elegant over time. On contrary, the models seem to be getting worse, often proposing really baroque architectures. You can use RL to optimize for correctness, optimizing the vibe seems much more difficult.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by squidbeak on Thursday October 08, 2026 @07:26AM (#50004516)

For deeper complexity, elegance may turn out to be a hindrance. Better or worse may turn out to be descriptive of taste and nothing else. On the other hand, elegant alternatives might be brought into reach by this first messy contact with new ideas. Who can say at this stage?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by Yamata on Thursday October 08, 2026 @02:21AM (#50002387)

There’s value but it is not rewarded commensurately with the contribution. Same for doing peer review.

[ Parent | on HN ]