On one particular Friday afternoon, he stated a conjecture that he hoped was true, and invited us to try to help him prove or disprove it. It was the sort of thing that he really wanted to be true; he liked things smooth and beautiful. I, on the other hand, hoped it was false as I like the weird and exceptional in mathematics. It was also the case that I had absolutely no command of the sort of machinery that one would use to prove such a thing, but I could certainly look for a counterexample.
I learned on Monday that he had spent the entire weekend trying and failing to prove it. I, on the other hand, had put all my energy into finding a counterexample and had one within an hour.
My single (quite small) contribution to mathematical research was a counterexample because it was all I could do. The story does illustrate that it can be helpful to have people with different tools, hopes, and motivations working on a problem, though. I was not, and will never be, even a shadow of that great mathematiciam I studied under, but on that occasion, I had reason to look in a different direction than he did.
Even if an LLM starts by pursuing things that follow human bias, continuous failures and re-prompting to try something different will eventually force it to consider things outside of what ever biases it has.
You can do the same thing to a human. But most people would consider it unethical to lock someone in a box and force them to keep trying to solve the same problem over and over again until they figure it out.
Is a 'bias' in a piece of writing generally a property of word to word choice and sentence to sentence construction or is it something more nebulous? Especially in terms of the appreciation of mathematics and someone's hesitance about publishing a mathematical argument they think is ugly or brute forced in some way.
Hm, as a mathematician, my experience feels opposite. A proof would be an adaptation of a proof I know, some tweaking it here and there. A counterexample would require some deep understanding of the structure of the objects involved, which frequently is beyond my comprehension.
But probably this is because I think of quite abstract objects which are harder to grasp. For numbers or polynomials, this would be the other way round.
The conjecture had to do with whether one convex polygon could be continuously deformed into another while remaining convex, under certain conditions and constraints. The answer turns out to be no, but surprise and disappointment are understandable reactions to that outcome. It was indeed much more practical for a young grad student to look for a clever misbehaving polygon than to try to prove something about all of them at once.
But also, for this conjecture to be wrong is quite surprising to me. Intuitively I would think any convex polygon to be topologically equivalent to a circle, and any convex n-gon should be deformable into its regular version, then back to the other one…
This kind of professor/researcher/teacher needs more praise. One of the first engineering courses I took when I started out in higher education was taught by such a person.
Maybe it's just me, but I never felt so welcomed and included during my time in higher education as when that lecturer told a bunch of first-year students "here are some things we haven't figured out which you can help with, let me know if you come up with something". It was inspiring and a great introduction to what's otherwise a rather dull first couple of years of academia.
> During his study in 1939, Dantzig solved two unsolved problems in statistics due to a misunderstanding. Near the beginning of a class, Professor Neyman wrote two problems on the blackboard. Dantzig arrived late and assumed that they were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue.[4][6] Six weeks later, an excited Neyman eagerly told him that the problems he had solved were two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics.[2][4] He had prepared one of Dantzig's solutions for publication in a mathematical journal.[7] This story spread and was used as a motivational lesson demonstrating the power of positive thinking. Over time, some facts were altered, but the basic story persisted in the form of an urban legend and as an introductory scene in the 1997 film Good Will Hunting.[6]
For a more extreme (although somewhat inverted) version of this, see Zeeman. He spent years trying to find a knotted sphere in a 5D space. Then realised this was impossible and got a proof for it in a few hours. [1]
[1] https://ima.org.uk/28009/sir-erik-christopher-zeeman-the-mat...
He spent an entire weekend before having the wisdom to pause, and let someone else contribute their time to finding a counter.
Ahem.
> On one particular Friday afternoon, he stated a conjecture that he hoped was true, and invited us to try to help him prove or disprove it.
It was a parallel effort ... we don't know how many people were working on it that weekend. And since the professor wanted it to be true and presumably believed that it was true, why the heck should he wait for students of unknown number and ability to find a counterexample that he didn't think existed?
Interestingly, Yitang Zhang of the twin-prime-conjecture fame spent 7 years working on the Jacobian conjecture under the advisor Tzuong-Tsieng Moh at Purdue. A key step in his thesis used a corollary of Moh's. It turned out that the corollary was incorrect. As a result, Moh refused to write any recommendation letter for Zhang, and Zhang couldn't find any teaching or research job and ended up spending years working at a Subway[1].
Imagine Zhag had ChatGPT in 1986 when he started working on the Jacobian Conjecture.
[1] Of course now this has become an inspiring story. That said, the story definitely invokes complex emotions. The best way to describe it is probably this Chinese poem, which I have no idea how to translate: 庾信平生最萧瑟，暮年诗赋动江关
A PhD student discovered that a result of his professor would imply the solution to a big conjecture in another field. The people in that field then analyzed the prof's result and found that the proof was flawed. The student was still allowed to graduate based on this since the finding of the connection between fields was brilliant. Then he quit academia (not because of this story, he had planned it before). Then a year later the prof figured out how to fix the flaw in his proof and published a paper with his former student, thus solving the conjecture. The two are still on good terms, writing papers together.
Sometimes, of course, the proof is just wrong. That is the dangerous case, which will cause either major corrections or failure.
It's understandably the natural place to get the dramatic tension from what at least purports to be a sober account with some momentum. It's reasonably consistent with the way it's treated on the lectures I've seen from Sir Andrew Wiles on YouTube.
It sounds like a nightmare. He had intentionally set the proof up in a high stakes way, working in private, very quiet on what he was really doing. I gather this is not the done thing, eccentric at best kind of vibes, and I think by that point it was almost crackpot adjacent to even try seriously. His advisor forcefully pushed him off even trying earlier. So it's compound on the stakes. The beg reveal is intentionally as dramatic as possible. And then the questions start to land, most are minor clarifications, notation deficits, but one is sticky, one won't go away.
Kept me up late reading about it.
Probably there are understandable reasons for that... But I think "negative science" is really important, and soft results like "we tried that for a long time and it wasn't very fruitful" are actually very important for progress even if they're poorly attested in the written record. I guess in mathematics they come informally from your thesis advisor...
Indeed there isn't such tradition. I have one or two results like that -- proofs that some proof strategies cannot work because some object does not exist, but since that object would not be interesting for anyone not trying that particular proof strategy for that particular (already obscure) problem, one cannot publish.
It would have to show something new and interesting.
The professor was John Milnor.
Naomi Wolf 'death recorded' on BBC[1], skip to 5:51. After this the book was pulped and she had some sort of psychotic break during COVID and allied with ultra-right and COVID denialist loonies.
> After this the book was pulped and she had some sort of psychotic break during COVID and allied with ultra-right and COVID denialist loonies.
That's quite an extreme shift considering she had previously been a leading figure in third-wave feminism and an OWS activist.
This is a real problem if you're one of the people involved in something like OWS who wants to see effective change, not just making a circus about yourself.
More generally I think people are inappropriately confident in general. When you go through history just about every century prior people believed many things that the next century would come to see as plainly false. People in modern times seemed to have stopped believing this was true, yet it's likely that people during every given century also stopped believing such was true, because what you believe "now" is always assumed to be correct. Nobody wants to believe they hold false beliefs, even though there's a practically 100% certainty that all of us do, and in quite healthy quantities.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
I'm tired of tales like this in academics though. That's not a criticism of you for telling the tale, I'm just so tired of this kind of thing in academics in general. So, so, so much politics and public reputation management. Zhang should have never had to suffer like that.
As my own research has drifted more into math, I've been surprised at how many assertions in the literature turn out to be false. Not just false, but propagated into the applied literature extensively, and even when you point out the problems a lot of defensiveness and denial about it along the lines of Zhang's story.
I agree about wondering what would have happened if LLMs had been around in 1986. My guess is the outcome would have been the same for the same reasons?
My experience with LLMs in proofs is they can be very helpful, but also very wrong. It's like having another person with another set of hunches about what path to go down.
Very true. Unfortunately, when there are people, there will be politics. I remember when reading Yau's autobiography, I kept marvel how much calculation, or "politics" if you will, that Yau mentioned or implied in the book.
> My guess is the outcome would have been the same for the same reasons?
At least Zhang didn't have to spend 7 years working on the Jacobian conjecture. He said in an interview that he always wanted to work on number theory. Moh asked him to work on Jacobian, and he obliged.
In his exact words: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
And he said that having lived, as a outsized figure, through the late 19th to mid 20th century of physics, which was the absolute golden age for such.
Yu Xin’s was a life of utter desolation; in old age, his poems and rhapsodies stirred the riverlands.
No life ran more bleak and desolate than Yu Xin's —
yet in his twilight years, his verses stirred the rivers and the passes.
Yu Xin's past was exquisitely tragic
Ages passed; now his works betray magicand for now as long humans are going to judge of what counts as an elegant or illuminating proof, there's going to be work for human mathematicians
[Dis]proof by counterexample is the most straightforward way to show a statement to be false. What better way is there to disprove a general statement like 'all x are y' than finding an 'x' that isn't 'y'?
*statements only apply to maps whose domain is finite-dimensional
Also, 'brute-force' style attacks where one simply feeds the input into the computer and it yields a solution are nothing new and certainly predate LLMs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_sum_of_powers_conjec...
Hell, one could even go further into the past and refer to the thankless work of pre-computer era mathematicians who sweated over manual calculations in order to disprove various prime related conjectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_conjectures
You seem to have an objection to non-intutionist mathematics in general, a position that was once held by many an illustrious mathematician but is relatively fringe in the contemporary academic community. Mathematical facts don't have to be intellectually satisfying or make sense to you, the human, rather it is up to you to wrap your mind around discovered mathematical facts.
Considering ChatGPT was released only three and half years ago, and LLMs could do high school math only less than two years ago, I think this "for now" will not last very long.
Couldn't people in principle continue to study a problem that's only been shown to break at one point? Prove something adjacent, or slightly weaker, or elaborate the counter example into a powerful explanatory framework?
Unless you want to spend time "proving" that 2 * 2 = 1.
But mathematics is not a collection of facts. Mathematics is the study of abstraction. And what do you learn from a single data point? What can you abstract from that?
That's why just being a counterexample isn't really interesting. There has to be more than "counterexample" for there to be something to abstract. Was it generated from an analysis of the problem? Can the counterexample be generalized to explore the problem further? Is the counterexample a surprise in a way that suggests something is missing from current understanding?
Being a counterexample doesn't mean that something isn't interesting to a mathematician. But it's also not the interesting part.
P.S. It helps that in CS lots of theorems are about either inductive or coinductive definitions.
1) I recommend the wonderful 1976 book Proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos.
2) There is a considerable list of books dedicated to counterexamples, e.g. in topology, probability, analysis, etc.
There's no structural reason to expect acceleration any more or less than an asymptotic behavior (if even that, acceleration is probably the bigger ask). Different problems yield to a new solvent, maybe that's also more, but it could go either way and we definitionally don't know yet because we don't understand the convexity of AI capability, we cannot directly access it interiority, we don't know if it's sandbagging (other than that it does sometimes, it can). It's an emergent phenomemon that might actively resist measurement. Or it might be as predictable as a clock in a few years.
No one knows, or if they do, they aren't talking. The loud people don't know anything.
Yeah, given how much it accelerates grad students to produce meaningful output more quickly, why wouldn’t you make an investment of $2400/student/year. Seems like pennies overall.
Of course Lean proofs are rarely a good way to understand proofs, but hopefully they can be used to generate more human understandable arguments.
Maybe in the future the work of Mathematicians will be like the ones of SWEs with AI, check thousands of lines of AI generated proof and find the subtle errors
That point had come some time ago. Nowadays the literature is both enormous and littered with false proofs and an unknown, but nonzero, number of false published results.
Occasionally large improvements in our models of the universe have been associated with the development of mathematical tools that allow those models to be expressed and/or tested.
If we do it probably won’t be for a long while. We’re barely using math from a couple hundred years ago for most applied usage.
Plus, as a non-expert, you will naturally want to understand more about what you are proving together with the expert. LLMs can help there, too, by carving a path from elementary mathematics to the research problem more efficiently and in a more targeted manner than a generic exposition or survey.
That could give birth to a beautiful research-exposition pair that can benefit both academics and interested laypeople, who have (rightfully, but inevitably) felt excluded from the insights of high level research. I have long hoped for something like that. There, however, the academic must watch the LLM like a hawk, because expository interpretation of results is prime ground for hallucinations, and adversarial agents will not have much effect in improving it.
It's not easy to find a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture, by any means – by which I mean to say that naïve brute-force search will take too long – but the scope of existing searches listed on Wikipedia[0] suggest that many tricks are already known, and that people just hadn't looked, systematically, for a counterexample in three variables before. Wikipedia writes:
> Tzuong-Tsieng Moh checked the conjecture for polynomials of degree at most 100 in two variables.[17][18]
where reference 17 is from 1983, and reference 18 is a preprint with no given date. Knowing very little about this problem, my impulse is to side with the unnamed faculty member cited in the article:
> [who] said to me that the fact that the counterexample was so easy to find just indicated that humans had not spent enough time thinking about the problem,
For context, the auto-generated counterexample is in three variables, has degree 7, and was discovered in 2026.
The difference today (and the reason why everyone is excited about it) is that the same system that does advanced math can write poetry, play an above average game of chess, code frontend/backend stuff and do cybersec. These are not "expert systems", nor are they trained for each task individually. That's the catch.
> just indicated that humans had not spent enough time thinking about the problem
Heh, this is a weak excuse. We've seen variations on this theme every time something cool gets solved by the models.
They are explicitly trained for each task individually.
EDIT: just re-read your comment. I don't think you have a good understanding here, no offence.
I think the misunderstanding comes from "individually". You are thinking about diverse datasets, but that's not what individually means in this context. In ML individually trained means that for each task you prepare an architecture, dataset and eval and train that model on that data. And each model has its own objective that you train for. In LMs the objective is singular, for every data point - next token prediction. And, importantly, you train on every datapoint, the more diverse the better, but not independently. The cool thing is that training on diverse datasets improves scores on other downstream tasks, while the training objective is the same.
So you can have a training run on common crawl + programming that improves scores on logic puzzles, or common crawl + novels that improves scores on planning tasks. But the important thing is that it's all trained together, not independently.
> The cool thing is that training on diverse datasets improves scores on other downstream tasks, while the training objective is the same.
Maybe for some language modelling tasks, i.e. it learns some internal representation that is transferable. However I would find it quite odd if a model becomes good at Bio while not explicitly going through Bio training.
You said:
> > nor are they trained for each task individually.
> They are explicitly trained for each task individually.
And that's the main misunderstanding.
Collins says:
individually in American English (ˌɪndəˈvɪdʒuəli, ˌɪndəˈvɪdʒəli) adverb 1. as an individual or individuals rather than as a group; one at a time; separately; singly
Which is precisely what LMs don't do (in contrast to previous "AI" models, which did do that). They are trained on every datapoint at the same time. So long as we agree on that, I think we are saying the same thing :)
One thing that he mentions that already quite surprising is that AI was able to autoformalize the Golod-Shaferevich theorem and proof.
https://aaronlou.com/jacobian_counterexample_prompt.pdf
Obviously it is not random, but it's very generic. No mention of search space or how to reduce it.
We're a good team, and that's ok.
All we're able to do is apply flawed analogies, generic information theoretical models, trial and error, post-hoc rationalizations and benchmarks without really understanding why.
Maybe the prompt contained a part like this: "the search space is too big to just try all the combinations of 3 variable polynomials, so be clever about it". Or maybe this part was omitted from the prompt, because modern LLMs are smart enough to figure this out without us having to mention it.
We really need to stop thinking about LLM training data as the knowledgebase they build from and instead consider it more the skillset they start with.