On 5/30/2026 10:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-math-solves-erdos-problem-openai-c4029e84
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/
2 + 2 = 22
define + as contamination... ;^)
A + B = AB
Anybody got change for a $250.00 bill???
Soon to be a major motion picture: Good Will Hunting - The Revenge of
the Cyborgs.
At least we can lay off all those people working on the erdos problem now.
On 06/03/2026 06:11 AM, super70s wrote:
Soon to be a major motion picture: Good Will Hunting - The Revenge of
the Cyborgs.
At least we can lay off all those people working on the erdos problem now. >>
No, that's ignorant, Erdos is well known for proving many conjectures
both ways, about facts of infinitary reasoning.
For example, there
are accounts in convergence and emergence, about whether, for example, there's a point at infinity or not and it's a prime and infinity or not, there are models of integers and how they're built where there is,
and models of integers and how they're built where it isn't.
This is called "Erdos' Giant Monsters of Independence", that it's _independent_ usual accounts of convergence and the infinitary where
that's so and where that's not so.
"Ramsey theory" then for example makes for matters of the exponential
where base 2 and base 3 are _different_, where, for example, accounts
of asymptotics and Big O think they are always the _same_, it's ignorant.
Poincare for example has a bunch of these.
So, when seeing these sorts of recent accounts like
"newbie proves induction: claims to eliminate half the math department", these are considered a bit pre-mature, to be
generous, and just feeding Erdos' "Giant Monster", not building
the infinitary "Great Atlas", of Mathematical Independence.
It's like proving all numbers are rational, which for some
Pythagoreans is a perfect finitary world, and others, lost at sea.
On 2026-06-03 14:57:07 +0000, Ross Finlayson said:
On 06/03/2026 06:11 AM, super70s wrote:
Soon to be a major motion picture: Good Will Hunting - The Revenge of
the Cyborgs.
At least we can lay off all those people working on the erdos problem
now.
No, that's ignorant, Erdos is well known for proving many conjectures
both ways, about facts of infinitary reasoning.
Thank you professor, obviously no one should joke around you.
For example, there
are accounts in convergence and emergence, about whether, for example,
there's a point at infinity or not and it's a prime and infinity or not,
there are models of integers and how they're built where there is,
and models of integers and how they're built where it isn't.
This is called "Erdos' Giant Monsters of Independence", that it's
_independent_ usual accounts of convergence and the infinitary where
that's so and where that's not so.
"Ramsey theory" then for example makes for matters of the exponential
where base 2 and base 3 are _different_, where, for example, accounts
of asymptotics and Big O think they are always the _same_, it's ignorant.
Poincare for example has a bunch of these.
So, when seeing these sorts of recent accounts like
"newbie proves induction: claims to eliminate half the math department",
these are considered a bit pre-mature, to be
generous, and just feeding Erdos' "Giant Monster", not building
the infinitary "Great Atlas", of Mathematical Independence.
It's like proving all numbers are rational, which for some
Pythagoreans is a perfect finitary world, and others, lost at sea.
On 05/30/2026 10:36 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/30/2026 10:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-math-solves-erdos-problem-openai-c4029e84 >>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-
old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/
2 + 2 = 22
define + as contamination... ;^)
A + B = AB
Anybody got change for a $250.00 bill???
Another example of stupidity not doing a thorough and diligent
search for counterexamples and thusly mistaking a distinctness
result with its conditions that they don't know for a uniqueness
result and directly into inductive failure then to cheat and lie
the "certification" since "mathematics proves it", when they
never resolved a mathematical paradox nor developed a super-classical
result, thusly: garbage in: garbage out.
On 6/3/2026 12:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/30/2026 10:36 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/30/2026 10:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-math-solves-erdos-problem-openai-
c4029e84
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-
year- old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/
2 + 2 = 22
define + as contamination... ;^)
A + B = AB
Anybody got change for a $250.00 bill???
Another example of stupidity not doing a thorough and diligent
search for counterexamples and thusly mistaking a distinctness
result with its conditions that they don't know for a uniqueness
result and directly into inductive failure then to cheat and lie
the "certification" since "mathematics proves it", when they
never resolved a mathematical paradox nor developed a super-classical
result, thusly: garbage in: garbage out.
Tell that to an L-system. It uses operators like this all the time.
A+B=AB for its symbols during fractal iteration.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-math-solves-erdos-problem-openai-c4029e84 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-just-solved-an-80-year-old-erdos-problem-and-mathematicians-are-amazed/
2 + 2 = 22
Anybody got change for a $250.00 bill???
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 39:26:25 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,644 |