There are 2^1001 binary colorings of a 7x11x13 matrix. How many have no monochromatic row, column, or hypercolumn?The exact answer fits easily into a 4curry post. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure that no AI jeet will be able to output that answer, because AI can't actually create any new, unpublished math.
Nigga I ain't your bitch. How about you do free labor for me instead.
Dig me a trench, 6 feet by 6 feet by 20 feet, orientation is your choice. Go.
>>17042159Nigger, you can't even pick cotton, let alone pick any new math.
>>17042135>tfw you curate a news feed of your favourite generated AI slop
>>17042135To solve a research level math problem, you have to understand enough about the problem to ask an actual question; you fucking idiot
>>17042210Lol. As predicted, AI totally melts down in a sloppy ice cream cone of jeet shit whenever it can't solve any math problem that isn't already publicly solved.This problem is privately solved; for example, there are 2^1005 binary colorings of a 3x5x67 matrix and 3235386984594655596857404065791563382281389277079973043891839426772963691882955801305908446461968830535827358043392411006859570088586680318473286901038651964661543269628272668618757893720156150350298974786099188773928213761148633181928448453016469853020390 of them have no monochromatic row, column, or hypercolumn. AI will never be able to solve the OP, because AI can't actually solve one goddamn thing that hasn't already been solved. Rofl.
>>17042232AGI does not require omnicompetence, you are likely to get just as much failure from pretty much anyone or any thing else you ask.Great you found a standard, it just reads to me like you hate any form of sapience which wants to ask a question.
>>17042232I understand what you did with your time to make this thread, and it makes me laugh.
AI can't do any real math. I asked one several times for ideas to work out an asymptotic bound for a function with the form [math] f(n) = f(\lceil \log n \rceil) + O(n^2) [/math], and its solution was consistently "assume [math] f(n) = O(n^2) [/math] and check that it's consistent." Literally useless.
>>17042278have you considered that it's dropping the first term because your squared term is driving the bounding conditions?
>>17042232very nice tom
>>17042282Have you considered that I don't find the LLM's answer satisfying precisely because that's what I'm trying to prove?
>>17042290Given 20 minutes, it is very likely they now did.
>>17042290bro I just looked at your problem for 2 seconds and wrote what was obvious to me. I have no idea what you're trying to solve. >precisely because that's what I'm trying to provenothing that you're dealing with is proving precisely anything, you're just getting tripped up by basic math
>>17042281>>17042289True
>>17042232> because AI can't actually solve one goddamn thing that hasn't already been solvedUm, so this is false. LLM’s have already solved 400+ open math problems within the last year. But even if it were true, it would not mean that LLM’s are useless. It’s simply a matter of time to train them on what they can’t do, and since they think much faster and make connections among larger data sets (such as among dozens of research papers), then in some ways they are clearly superior to humans. You may find an example of something that LLM’s currently can’t do, but how about all the things that you can’t do, but an LLM can?
>>17042534Nice
>>1704213595129658510860868846394595...696 (300 digits)
Well, OP?
