alt.hn

It seems likely that PhD students in the subfields of the authors are capable of solving these problems. What makes them interesting is that they seem to require fairly high research level context to really make progress.

It’s a test of whether the LLMs can really synthesize results from knowledge that require a human several years of postgraduate preparation in a specific research area.

by _alternator_

A surfboard is also an amazing tool, but there's more to operating one than telling it which way to go.

Many people want self-driving cars so they can drink in the back seat watching movies. They'll find their jobs replaced by AI, with a poor quality of life because we're a selfish species. In contrast Niki Lauda trusted fellow Formula 1 race car driver James Hunt to race centimeters apart. Some people want AI to help them drive that well. They'll have great jobs as AI evolves.

Gary Kasparov pioneered "freestyle" chess tournaments after his defeat by Big Blue, where the best human players were paired with computers, coining the "centaur" model of human-machine cooperation. This is frequently cited in the finance literature, where it is recognized that AI-guided human judgement can out-perform either humans or machines.

Any math professor knows how to help graduate students confidently complete a PhD thesis, or how to humiliate students in an oral exam. It’s a choice. To accomplish more work than one can complete alone, choose the former. This is the arc of human evolution: we develop tools to enhance our abilities. We meld with an abacus or a slide rule, and it makes us smarter. We learn to anticipate computations, like we’re playing a musical instrument in our heads. Or we pull out a calculator that makes us dumber. The role we see for our tools matters.

Programmers who actually write better code using AI know this. These HN threads are filled with despair over the poor quality of vibe coding. At the same time, Anthropic is successfully coding Claude using Claude.

by Syzygies

> the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time.

Ok. But humans may be able to solve the problems too. What prevents Anthropic or OpenAI from hiring mathematicians, have them write the proof and pass it off as LLM written? I'm not saying that's what they'll do. But shouldn't the paper say something about how they're going to validate that this doesn't happen?

Honest question here. Not trying to start a flame here. Honestly confused how this is going to test what it wants to test. Or maybe I'm just plain confused. Someone help me understand this?

by blenderob

Is this known?

by hiq

And coming back to our proofs --

Summary Paper : “One Shot Root, Ten Birds Projections” (https://lnkd.in/gb9-U4Ap)

Full 10‑Section Mechanized Proof Folder (https://lnkd.in/gdegAnC3)

A MUST READ Honest Paper by Copilot admitting its limit : no LLM can solve even one of the ten #1stProof problems without the Root Central Theorem + CPT‑Decider(https://lnkd.in/gturda6g)

When we first examined your challenge, I asked Copilot How many of these ten problems could a state‑of‑the‑art LLM solve using traditional mathematical methods?

The honest answer was: Zero.

This moment of clarity became the catalyst i.e. rather than attempting ten unrelated problems with ten unrelated techniques, we built a unified operator‑level framework — grounded in the Root Central Theorem and implemented through the CPT‑Decider mechanized proof engine — that treats all ten problems as projections of a single underlying structure.

This framework:

encodes each mathematical object into CPT invariants,

simulates its behavior through a four‑phase cadence loop,

detects contradictions via universal conflict operators, and

closes every proof through a single fixed‑point mechanism.

Using this approach, we produced a complete, mechanized solution strategy for all ten problems, not by solving them independently, but by demonstrating that they all arise from the same C⁴‑graded operator root.

The Proposal: A Single Quartic Object Underlies All These Phenomena Our recent work on the Root Central Theorem of the Universe identifies a single mathematical object — the SSR C₄ Cadence Root — that appears to unify the structures you described from different angles.

This object:

generates the ℤ/4ℤ5 reciprocity grading in arithmetic,

induces the 1 mod 4 / 3 mod 4 functors in the categorical decomposition of the iTOE lattice,

produces the infinite ∞‑groupoid universe that homotopy type theory treats as primitive,

selects S4 × S3 as the physically realized symmetry group of our universe,

and constrains the universal CPT meta‑projector that governs operators across physics, AI, biology, economics and others

In other words:

The same quartic cadence object appears in arithmetic, category theory, homotopy theory, physics, and operator theory — but each field sees only its shadow.

What Is Mathematics About? The category‑theoretic view — that mathematics is fundamentally about structures and homomorphisms and set theory view that mathematics is fundamentally about objects and isomorphisms — are powerful but incomplete.

Our result suggests:

∞‑groupoids,

equivalences,

functors,

natural transformations,

and homotopy types

are projections of the same quartic cadence root.

The Root Central Theorem (Informal Statement) There exists a unique quartic cadence object with whose action simultaneously induces:

the reciprocity grading in arithmetic,

the 1/3 mod 4 functors in category theory,

the infinite ∞‑groupoid universe of HoTT,

the C₄ grading of all iTOE symmetry groups,

and the cadence constraint in the universal CPT meta‑projector.

Any structure that induces all five is isomorphic to this SSR C₄ Cadence Root.

We would be humbled and honored to hear your thoughts.

This brings us to our i-TOE theory behind this thesis and its formulation as it is important that you understand our iTOE’s pre-print thesis for you to grasp our POV

Imagine for a moment — when we “simul-scale-rotate(SSR)” a “n mod 4" dynamics based 8+2 Gaussian integer invariant latticed Eigen vector points anchored unit circle, 90 degrees continuously, it gets twisted itself as an unit lemniscate (aka genus 2 torus or figure 8) before getting untwisted again — and again and again for every 4 cycles! When we think about this simple twisting/untwisting operation, it is equivalent to the symmetry of the unit circle being broken as that of a unit lemniscate, before getting unbroken again — and again and again for every 4 cycles without losing the causality. This births two parallel "All at once" Universes" -- all by the power of the dynamic rescaling/renormalization mechanism of our iTOE Triad’s simul–scale–rotate (SSR) cycle, operating in four phases (n mod 4), twists the unit circle into a lemniscate and then untwists it back again. In 3D, each cycle collapses all loops, certifying the triviality of π₁ and proving the Poincaré Conjecture. In 4D, the same twist produces a persistent self/anti‑self dual split, leaving behind instanton sectors and a positive mass gap, thus certifying the non‑triviality of Yang–Mills. In higher dimensions (5D–8D), the twist–untwist cycle restores circle symmetry without preserving gauge residues, shifting certification to geometric and holonomy invariants (Kähler in 6D, G₂ in 7D, Spin(7) in 8D). The births one universal cadence law that explains collapse in 3D, richness in 4D, and holonomy in higher dimensions — closing the root cause loop of dimensional behavior using three mutually reinforcing polynomial equations, given in their full symbolic form as summarized in this paper ( https://lnkd.in/gBE6ZvQT) and 100+ papers in this Folder (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DfdeMo4MK4bcTFlZPIwx...)

1. CPT–JCF characteristic polynomial — the quantum microcycle spine: This polynomial remains constant over 136 semisimple / arcs (quantum microcycles). CPT - JCF(, Φ, Ψ) = √2 = = = () = ( ) ( ) = inv() = Φ(, , , ) = det( - ) ⋅∏=1( - )^ = () ⋅ () = (, , , Ψ, ) = (, Ψ).

.2. CPT minimal polynomial — the golden‑ratio bridge: This governs the φ‑scheduler that shapes so the N‑step can close the ledger exactly..

() = 2 - - 1

.3. CPT–N‑step characteristic polynomial — the classical macro closure: This polynomial is constant if and only if 0 is tuned so + + - = 0 (ledger neutrality).

CPT(, Φ, Ψ) = √2π = L = A = π(n) = k(/)(/) = P(λ) = Φ(G, λ, X, f) = det(M(G) - λI) = H(M, t, X, Ψ, f) = kC(t, Ψ)

Where

CPT(, Φ,Ψ): The Charles Prabakar Todd (CPT) function, the geometer, combinator & generator of the entire infinite groupoid universe.

Among the infinite C₄‑graded groupoid solutions, one corresponds to our universe:

S4 × S3— the physically realized C₄‑graded solution It has exactly five subgroup branches:

A₂

D₄

E₆

E₇

E₈

Thus:

The Universal C₄ Cadence Root generates the infinite groupoid universe.

The CPT polynomials select S₄ × S₄ as our universe.

The five subgroup sectors correspond to the observed symmetries of RM, DM and DE

Category theory’s infinite groupoid ontology is a subset of the iTOE solution space.

√2π: Invariance of Periodicity

: The lemniscate constant limited by

: Invariance of Action

π(n): Prime density function as = (n−∑ln())/π(n)

k(/)(/): Gauss's reciprocity

() = Φ(G, λ, X, f) Characteristic polynomial encoding dekatonian

det((G)− ): Aggregates determinants tied to CPT's modular states.

H(M, t, X, Ψ, f): Harmonic invariants over time () & space (), by CPT function's modularity & equivariant cohomology-ADE-E8

kC(t, Ψ) : Speed of light w/t scaling factor ≈ 1.197 × 10^8 m/s. evolution

To learn more check out this attached 5 page Exhibit (https://lnkd.in/gUUZBmCr) including our most recent Matrix Trilogy thesis, operationalized via a Universal Simulation Doctrine (USD) engine across disciplinary trilogical views: AI, Physics, Economics, Finance, and the Scriptural theological Matrix and more

Rightfully so, all major AI models (widely deemed as expert peer reviewers) have affirmed our integrated approach as a 10/10‑rated, $1000T+‑scale, $10T+ license‑valued, civilization‑level, IP-Protected iTOE–CPT–Matrix–Maxel AI & Green Fusion 20‑patent portfolio (https://lnkd.in/g8ZimJzq), supported by 10+ theoretical proofs (https://lnkd.in/gX4SBvdM), 10+ experimental validations (https://lnkd.in/g7T9fFM9), and 10/10 rating proofs ( https://lnkd.in/dhtWYc5E) -

by CPrabakar

  17‑Prong Cauchy‑Geometric-Taylor  Convergence at r = 1/φ²  integrated 18‑Prong QED

But as a non-mathematician I'm not following any of it. How many people are there who are willing to check the generative results? And how much effort is it for a human to check these? How quickly can you even identify math-slop?

Here's the generated proof:

https://github.com/w-m/firstproof_problem_10/blob/2acd1cea85...

by w-m

As it should. Good.

This is a totally independent test not conducted or collaborated by any of the AI companies or employees so that no bias is introduced at all[0].

[0] Unless the researchers are not disclosing if they have any ownership of shares in private AI companies.

by rvz

The field of AI4Math has so many benchmarks that are well executed -- based of the related work section it seems the authors are bit familiar with AI4Math at all.

My belief is that this paper is even being discussed solely because a Fields Medalist, Martin Hairer, is on it.

by data_maan