Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ...
by lern_too_spel on Thursday October 08, 2026 @04:27AM
(#50003232)
It is not obvious to me that a single canonical human language write-up of a proof is the best output in this new world where write-ups are cheap. A human reader can query an LLM and get explanations of key points tailored to the reader's own background in mathematics.
Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ...
by JumpCrisscross on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:14PM
(#50008667)
> A human reader can query an LLM and get explanations of key points tailored to the reader's own background in mathematics
Convenient. To verify my shovel works you must buy…more shovels!
So yeah, probably we should stop saying "X has been solved", and instead say, "A Lean proof for X (or !X) has been generated". That doesn't change the fact that incentives are currently on finding the proof, and once the proof is generated by an AI, there's not currently a good mechanism / incentive structure to move that into the mathematical community. AI is here, so we need to find a new mechanism.