RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
25% Positive
Analyzed from 400 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#claude#mathematics#results#https#proof#author#correctness#generated#outside#hard

Discussion (11 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I would be grateful, if someone familiar with the situation could say a word about this.
As for the proof in question - I'm not sure the author himself can firmly state he understands every detail of what he presented. In a way it's amusing that people who already enjoy a certain level of recognition outside the field are now using it to find (via shiny websites) reviewers for proofs they have worked out as a hobby using Chat GPT and the like.
What we definitely need is more recognition for those who possess the competence and energy to assess the correctness and relevance of such "results".
The author claims to have a proof in Lean. Checking the correctness of the result is now reduced to checking the definition of the constant.
That said, I have no idea what contribution may have been done by Mr. Gomila or not. I don't know if I can ask him for more details. Even if he wrote the whole thing (and either has deeply internalized Claude's voice or had it edited and rewritten by an agent) it's difficult to believe that he's the sort of expert I'd expect of someone who had actually done all this work.
This is basically the same feeling I have about vibe code contributors.
As far as the exact breakdown we will never know. But questioning the authorship in a way that leads us to believe that the author did nothing is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn%E2%80%93Newman_const...
(See the video at the bottom)
[1]: https://github.com/3b1b/manim
Every sentence delivered like this.
With overdramatic pacing.
Forever.