Not these. I wonder if the well is poisoned there. The models know that these are "unpossible", so it might not solve them just because…
Maybe some day.
I am just testing it on stuff I know intimately myself. I would probably not understand a proof of Collatz if it was dansing in front of me!
I don’t care to share my exact problems. Mostly because gpt -5.5 hallucinates false solutions, and I would rather not have people reply with "Oh but ChatGPT solves it!", because it takes expert knowledge to debunk them. To their credit ChatGPT will admit their, very fundamental mistakes when pointed out to them. But also because no-one would really care.
I gave a high level description of the problems in a sibling thread. They are the kind of small problems which I suppose every researcher has lying around, waiting for them to think about some day. But not the big problem everyone is waiting for to be solved.
My comment was not meant to be a tease – sorry! I assumed there would be other people in a similar situation, who might relate.
That's a bit of a tricky point. I have had quite a lot of problems with models informing me what I am attempting is impossible. If no-one has done it, or at least it doesn't know about it being done it tends to fall back on people voicing their baseless speculations, and for just about anything you propose, you can find a person who will loudly proclaim it is impossible.
The curse of the 'use case' comes in here too. When people think that everything should have a use case, that's a lot of training data suggesting to a model that things should only be used for what someone has already thought of.
A couple of times I have had to manually code proof of concept pieces so that the model breaks out of that "unpossible" mode and actually helps me.
I can't remember if it was chatGPT or Claude, but when I showed it how to get a MessagePort in its JavaScript executor through to the artifact/canvas, it quickly went from "That can't be done" to positively enthusiastic about the possibilities. I suspect those shenanigans will be well off the table for Fable though.
is this a joke? Seriously? These are some of hardest problems in Math period. 100 if not thousands of the greates minds in history have attempted to solve these problems. And you think that the current level of AI can blow through them? It is also a possibility that for example the Riemann Hypothesis is just not provable. (Goedels Theorem).
No one is expecting that! I expect _kb was sarcastic/making a point.
Recently (last couple of months?) these models are becoming useful tools for mathematicians, because they can solve easier problems more quickly, meaning that one can tackle bigger challenges (but maybe not RH et al) piece by piece.
But, there are still definite limits, where one could expect an expert human to solve things, given time, but models do not. Thus, more intelligence would be nice!
It was a bit of humour. It would be much for feasible to have an LLM generate programs that solve those problems rather than solving directly. I tried to make a start, but I couldn't even vibe a simple tool that would let me reliably validate if generated solvers would halt or loop forever.
Yes, but at a significantly higher level of magnitude. Their official count is 122,398; the US reported 1,238,123. Both are undercounts, but China's is probably much more of an undercount.
> Encouraging such behavior will waste people's time having to deal with people on this site who can't do simple arithmetic.
We shouldn't encourage people who can't properly read and understand a comment before replying either, but here we are talking to you who jumped on correcting the “2 or 3 years” to “19 years” without noticing that “2007” was in the post so the poster was obviously well aware of that.
> being unable to subtract two simple numbers is not funny
1. That is not the joke. It is referencing how humans experience the passage of time at massively different rates to the actual reality, especially as we age.
2. Humour is subjective. So is, to an extent, the amount of it that is acceptable in a given environment. Sense of humour is sometimes objectively non-existent, as you helpfully illustrate by clear example.
>“2007” was in the post so the poster was obviously well aware of that.
Which is why I first included the possibility the commenter didn't know the current year.
>humans experience the passage of time at massively different rates
The commenter did not say anything related to this. The relative speed of time was not referenced.
>that is acceptable in a given environment
Humor is not very acceptable on this website compared to others, so it's important to protect this and not let outsiders from other sites to try and bring their humor here.
> Which is why I first included the possibility the commenter didn't know the current year.
> > humans experience the passage of time at massively different rates
> The commenter did not say anything related to this. The relative speed of time was not referenced.
But it was implied, by the very common joke format. You made no direct reference to the current year. Your argument there would be more convincing if you were as clear and detailed in your meaning as you expect everyone else to be.
> and not let outsiders from other sites to try and bring their humor here.
Thank you, Mr Account-Created-In-2021, for defending those of us who have been around since 2013, 2011, and 2010, from the humour of outsiders like ourselves!
For the music application, Max Cooper uses items that appear in the OEIS catalogue pretty heavily. IMO, his works sound amazing. Tracks like Aleph 2 (https://vimeo.com/367747083) or Fibonacci Sequence (https://vimeo.com/991635293) stand out as immediate examples.
For something more mainstream even Tool lean into the Fibonacci sequence theme with Lateralus, almost to a meme level.
> Is thinking about music as applied mathematics a good way to create good music? Or is it just the most easily digestible model of music for the crowd on this site?
It's a great way to analyse music (e.g. to categorise, understand, and communicate detail), but that does not mean it's a good way to create it. There's a lot of beauty in finding those abstractions and I think that representation appeals to a lot of people here.
Discussions about timbre, instrumentation, and stylistic influence are often symmetric to those about math. When you have 90 minutes to spare, highly recommend strapping in for a listen to https://malwebb.com/notnoi.html.
There's a lot of really incredible musicians, composers, producers, and educators that go deep on the math. There's also plenty that don't. People build mental models in different ways. That's a good thing and a big part of what makes most art interesting.
Or do you mean a button that activates chunked recording, passes it to a speech-to-text model, forwards to an LLM to infer intent, which triggers HA to issue a command, over a wireless network, to the computer with the light attached, to tell the light to turn on.
reply