this is a credible leaker in AI community btwnote the wording>is being verifiedcould mean they already generated the solution and is preparing it for release
My sources says that AI have solved the halting problem, but it don't want to tell us.
>>17055325Busy Beaver Stampede in 3, 2, 1, …
>>17053653>it's been 3 days since the last math breakthrough press release, AI is plateauinglmao
>>17050999But haven't you read? OP told you he's a credible leaker!
>>17050933Of all the retards who put money on AI once the rug pull happens.
Who is in the wrong here?
>>17052507>Ironically what's the point?The point is to normalize delegating all your thinking to word-guessing statistical models. To make this grim enterprise into a fun social activity for normalcattle. The "people" funding that don't want to hear any criticism, therefore they shut it down as soon as someone speaks up, because the sole point is PR.
>>17051716This is such a dumb take. Geoffrey hinton said we should stop training radiologists because in 5 years we won't need them. That was 10 years ago. AI isn't replacing radiologists because because there haven't been trials, but because AI does not have a solution to the translational gap. It simply doesn't consistently exceed human performance on radiological tasks in real world clinical settings.
>>17051716>people exactly like those in the OP have the power to gatekeep AI away from clinical trials.All your likes should be rounded up, put in concentration camps and be used for ChatGPT's medical trial-and-error as it tries to stumble upon a vaccine against spiteful mutancy.
>>17051594>40 hours is not enough to...So mathematicians don't know what a hackathon is?
>>17051592Irrelevant. All billionaires and their spawn must be obliterated or everything will become meaningless.
should i dump the lean proof here anonymously?
>>17054149>If a diagram omits all the odd numbers then there will be infinitely many nodes (2^k n - 1) / 3 for all k with 2^k n = 1 mod 3 (which will be the case either for all odd k or all even k)I don't understand this, care to expand on it?>>17054158I was thinking more along the lines that if there is a second cycle, the distances up would be the same as the distances down, but the number of steps up and down would be unlikely to be the same.
>>17055394>I don't understand this, care to expand on it?Which part?If 2^k n = 1 mod 3 then 2^k n - 1 is divisible by 3, say 3x (note: we must have x odd here, since 2^k n - 1 is obviously odd). Then 3x+1 = 2^k n and repeating the Collatz map k more times will lead to n.Are you you're confused about why 2^k n is 1 mod 3 for infinitely many k? How much modular arithmetic do you know?Btw I fucked up, we need n to not be divisible by 3 for this to work.
>>17052772Syzzurp for math nerds.
>>17052772BMI below 18
>>17052772little to no marbling
I can't be the only one who is genuinely excited to see STEMtards lose all their status. Just means more status for me.
Status doesn't change much beyond the opinions of living things of other living things. But is what the living thing attributed status to right to do so?
>>17056350
>>17056355pecker play requires statusop must have made his baggies already, or got JACKED
Autismo Supreme has 1 hour crashout on the state of Western civilization after Navier-Stokes solved by clanka https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhz5OubU0BUPOAST EM
>be 4chins>board about x>hahah fucking x is so awful>on every x boardw h e w
>>17051791Shit is grim
>>17051812It solved the millennium prize problem which was about whether all navier stokes solutions are smooth. It found a counterexample. It's all legit. Not AI's problem retards thought it solved them entirely. Real world applications remain as difficult as before, but maybe AI optimize that too, like matrix multiplication.
>>17055200Should have learned a trade.
>>17051819>>I'm not getting paid to verify your proofs waaahhh>>pay me waaaaaaahIsn't this what Lean is for?
Genuinely can't believe I used to envy mathematicians. All they ever did was brute search. Such a gay field.
>>17056049He's an idiot, we're the smart ones. Source: fuck you, nigga.
>>17056094he was truly a visionary and we should have listened
>>17055058>All they ever did was brute search.That is indeed how many mathematicians describe proof creation. A little bit of brute force search + a lot of intuition.
>>17055084This but unironically and genuinely.
>>17055084Ai is literally fake, if it were real, people would be making adobe and office products for Linux, portal 3, terraria 2, cod zombies, discord alternative, actually implement modules and reflection for C++ compilers. Alas the software landscape is unchanged and everything is still a ram hogging ad filled bloated chromium webappI can never get it to implement flexbox, which is just a single function, or a mesh Boolean that preserves uvs and works on ngons, even with the Claude pro plan
STEMfags, what is your actual game plan now?
>>17050821What are we going to do if we don't find Noah's ark for the 5th time this decade?
>>17049893cope nigger
>>17050312/threadAs an employer I don't care that the piss and shit conjecture has been solved by OpenAnus, I care about an employee that can reason about things abstractly. I want to see the average slop midwit to pull up a phone during a whiteboard interview yo ask grok, lmfao
>>17049882Cope
>>17049930Erm, the joke here is that it's not the smart kids winning, it's the business fags.
It's math. I can understand when /ic/ had complete meltdown when AI start to spit out quality arts. But come on, did people here really think computers of all things wouldn't out do you at..math?
>>17055835Oh. Turns out you were right. "He" (do corpo spambots have genders) literally can't answer (>>17055836).
>>17055823>What I see here is something that couldn't draw hands yesterday, is drawing these today, which makes me wonder what else it can draw tomorrow.Hmm. Well, you can iterate tomorrows to infinity and the best case scenario for this tech is that it'll draw whatever people were drawing yesterday.
>>17055859When I say "this tech" I mean every possible derivative of diffusion models and or other alternative rooted in modeling scraped human data. But I'll be looking forward to sentient artificial humanoids showing humanity how to progress beyond its aesthetic limits, in approximately Two More Weeks. :^)
>>17055560Funny, the clankers won't support you or let you be part of the cool guys club. They won't acknowledge your existence
>>17055823saar
New research shows China leads research in 90% of crucial technologies & ignoring this means we're living in a delusional bubble, where we still think the West is the Sci-Tech leader.I think a lot of people are in denial, or just can't accept that China is already the world's leading nation for science and technology. I can't blame them for their ignorance. Most English-language media studiously avoid mentioning it. Time and time again, I see topics like AI, space & robotics covered, with only developments in Western countries talked of, as if China doesn't exist. Despite the fact that it's now the leader in so many fields.The problem with complacency and ignorance is that it gives you a really distorted map of reality. You can't understand how the 21st century is developing without factoring in China, and ignoring China means you're being delusional.Source:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04048-7https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/aspis-critical-technology-tracker-2025-updates-and-10-new-technologies/
>>17053664India.
/sci/ moderators are chinks lolol
such fucking bugs
>>17054814>>17054816kek
>>17053664Israel
>P = NP>just subtract P from both sidesWhere is my milion $?
>>17054181no you don't it not how it works lol
>>17053474Am I missing something or this seem more like a logical fallacy? I know a question which is easy to prove the answer, but is impossible to calculate>I am thinking of a number. Guess what number I am thinking of.
>>17054905Your question does not take the shape of the type of question P vs NP is asking about. Its more specific than simple any question that is hard to solve vs easy to verify. It stuff like seppuku puzzles or the travelling salesman
>>1705490567
>>17054905I think you just have to write a program that decides all true Godelnumbers
stringking42069 predicted that Sabrina (“The Next Einstein” à la 2019) is going to write a few more useless throwaway papers, and then inevitably sell out to AI within a year since her entire ouvre has been vaporware. I tend to agree; she was a fake from the start. She is still hanging on with some outrageously good positions she is under qualified for; but for how long though ?Let’s predict her future.
>>17054384Very good points, the fast talking was not striking me as characteristic of scammers so far.If it interests you, this jewish crypto scammer was what i was referring to, he released some useless trash "product" but had to sell it as the next revolution.https://youtu.be/ugF9kZW2pGw?si=rl6XoCBmhde3ZKnF&t=220You can start at the timestamp and just analyse how insecure he is to not talk anything wrong that can be used against him or that shows that there is no substance. I think he is a perfect study object how scammers talk he has many more of these interviews. He managed to convince many people that he was some kind of genius developer. He walked away with 100 million btw while the token went to 0...
>>17054392>Caroline is hot
>>17054384https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EunS6JEAAAAJ&hl=enShe has an h-index of 28 lol. She is obviously not the next einstein or whatever retarded shit the media says but she is not a grifter.
>>17055751>last paper from early 2023 with 20 pages and a jeet coauthorYeah strong grifter vibes
>>17056141Ók nvm im retarded she still makes papers.
Is Trofim Lysenko the most vindicated man in the history of science? >mendeloids dni
>>17055780>dni>>>/tumblr/why do brainlets love digging up literal whos who published some bullshit that they then have to spend tens of thousands of wasted characters justifying with mental gymnastics?>no, listen, if you interpret all his drivel that did not work and was objectively wrong with modern findings-You people will come up with any old bullshit to feel smarter than everyone else, except none of you actually contribute anything of value to academia.
>>17055783Im more interested in the psychology of people like you coming here every day attacking every non mainstream post.
>>17055828What a fucking cope. One meme line of text one meme image. MUH NON MAINSTREAM SCICENCE
>>17055828what non mainstream science? This entire board is 90% "non mainstream" """" science"""" and when you prod the vast bulk of the shitposters they never even studied the subject they shitpost about, and when anyone points that out they usually scream "appeal to authority".
>>17055871>>17055878Yeah the psychology of you guys. Why do you come here and seethe about people with no credentials bringing up their special and interesting theories? You know you dont have to visit this side?
>we seek in vain for a reason why one should be preferredYeah because in 1914 you did not know about CMB which is the preferred frame in cosmology.>we FEEL forced to postulate they are equivalentOh you FEEL? Really? FEELS? Based on outdated facts. Thats what modern physics is based on btw, while attacking everyone arguing in a way better metaphysical waySource: Mach's principle : from Newton's bucket to quantum gravity and it was from a 1914 einstein paper
>>17055842As i said it doesnt matter (you can see it that way or define the redshift as change), this is all a strawmen, einstein made a FAR stronger claim which you ignored >>17055833His claim was "we cant find a sufficient reason why we should use a frame as REFERENCE system, not preferred. And since cosmology uses CMB as REFERENCE frame, its over for relativists.
>>17055844>since cosmology uses CMB as REFERENCE framedo you understand what reference frame means? Do you understand that the reference frame being a common standard does not imply that it has explanatory power? For example, what changes when you switch to Anon's green frog dick reference frame, doyou obtain different results?
>>17055873>the reference frame being a common standard does not imply that it has explanatory powerThen frame your theory without this explanatorily-worthless fictional entity. :^)
>>17055875"Manifolds can be expressed coordinate independently" is kinda the first thing I would have expected you to have learned from the introductory topology lessons that that GR prerequisites. Coordinate frames are locally emergent, and I do not recall that sufficiently shitty GR solutions have a reason to have a single reference frame that can reach every point in space.
>>17055873>For example, what changes when you switch to Anon's green frog dick reference frame, do>you obtain different results?Yes, the expansion of the universe and the cosmic redshift would be highly anisotropic. But again, thats not even what einstein suggested, einstein made a way harder claim.
Several prominent tech figures have been claiming the Hodge Conjecture (another Millennium problem) has been solved. How big is this?
>>17052201A non-perturbative quantum field theory probably is the "something deeper" you are looking for. Whatever new method the solution discovers would be a replacement for the standard model and probably immediately suggest all sorts of new physics to explore.
Humans living in the best timeline. Human mathematician can now just be like "do your thang lol" to LLM and chill while thinking machine works, then claim result as theirs. Magnificent. People used to have seeing eye dogs, now we have thinking brain machines. Don't hate on the differently able.
>>17051903>>17051925Fitizen mathematicians? Based. I can't even do long division.>>17052025How can it be hard if it's not proven? How do we even know it's real?
>>17056083What is real? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
>>17056095nta but real is that which has consequences you cannot avoid.like you can have your fantasy world where you slay the dragon and in that case it's not real because you can slay the dragon. if a dragon were to be real you wouldn't slay shit, you'd get splattered/burned/eaten alive. you wouldn't be able to avoid that consequence going against a dragon with a sword.
Does cycling destroy testicles and fertility? Looks like the science is split about this.
The places in the world where people cycle a lot like the Netherlands and Denmark don't have any fertility problems relative to everyone else. So the answer is clearly no. Unless it's their immense chad virility that allows them to take the nerf to give everyone else a fair match, I guess.
Men should not ride, they should be ridden by women. In bed. That's a man's place, in the middle of his wives.
>>17056062>i am a shared dildo>owned by a group of radical lesbians
>>17056060They import fertile BBC from North Africa.
>>17056074Yes, that's how you men will end up you realize? The desirable genetically will not be able to deprive humanity of their genes. If the survival of humanity depends on improving fitness, and your genes are good? You will be... utilized. If you're not desirable genetically you have nothing to fear, and honestly the majority of the guys in here are safe lol
