nhatcher

I'm still shelled shocked, but my initial reaction is caution. Wait what did they claim to have proof exactly? I can't see their pdf in natural language either.

Yes, people did. Well at least I did. We knew we can use QCD to compute loops and to some degree masses in the lattice. But there were serious doubts the underlying mathematical theory was sound. For many it didn't even matter. It would just mean that at those energies the theory is not even valid.

I am not certain on the extend of this proof but QED is probably not sound on it's own and we have been using that even longer. lambda phi^4 behind symmetry breaking and the higgs is strongly believed to be unsound on its own.

Woah, they got QCD! I didn't think they could do that. Three things jump to my mind: 1. Is it really true? Did they get the basic conditions right? 2. Would I ever be able to understand the proof 3. But the most important one. Can we compute hadronic masses now?

This is an incredible scientific achievement. One of our most fundamental theories is mathematically sound. Without the use of AI is very likely I would have never seen this in my lifetime

Damn, now I have another future goal.

I thought the same thing. You would like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon_numbe...

See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-unique-shape-a-...

Catalan's constant is irrational!!!

That is a big one. Exciting times to be alive. Regrettably I can't understand the proof at this point.

There was a (flawed) proof submitted a month back:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04176

I wonder if it gave part of the inspiration.

The source code is in GitLab: https://gitlab.cern.ch/colibri/colibri

Some millennium problems? Are there more coming?

Note to self: This is a fantastic description on atomics and locks in Rust. I would say it is even better than the documentation or the Rust Book. It has a _soul_, you can see and feel the person talking. It has _unity_, you can understand it as a whole, not a bunch of disconnected parts. It has _intent_, you can see the author is trying to teach you something.

This is the level I should aspire when writing documentation and a living proof that as of today no LLM can do anything remotely close to that.

The first serious book I ever got on physics was Landau's Classical Mechanics. His writting left a long lasting impression on me. His wikipedia page made me think of the so many great physicists and scientist that will never be because of madness. Made me nostalgic and sad at the same time.

Oh wow, I'm fairly impressed. I wouldn't have expected AI to solve a problem this hard just now.

There have been claims of complex structures on s6 (or absence of them) quite a few times over the last 15 years. Some by acclaimed mathematicians. There was some discussions on HN a few days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49412947

Hehe, I really like them. And I always recommend those. It's not always that you have some nice books on deep concepts in mathematics for the "general" public

I regrettably don't have a good plan for that. We have a grant from the European Union that will pay our salaries for another year or so.

From Excel/Google sheets because ot is MIT/Apache 2.

From libre office because it is web first and also an engine first

It's written in Rust and has bindings to different languages. It's extremely light and fast

As per usual for the last two years I'm working on an open source spreadsheet engine called IronCalc. It is super exciting. We have a proof of concept at

https://app.ironcalc.com

In the last couple of months my partner and myself quit our jobs to work on that. I am pretty sure that in a year from now the world is going to have a fairly competent spreadsheet alternative.

My capacity is fairly limited but I am trying to build a community around it. Join us!

https://github.com/ironcalc/IronCalc

That is really cool and impressive! Fantastic job