| ▲ | zone411 4 hours ago |
| A quick check shows that this list claims to fully solve 90 of the top 500 open problems in math (https://proofatlas.ai/open-problems/). The highest ranked would be: | 22 | Hilbert’s tenth problem over ℚ | | 29 | Unique Games | | 31 | Anderson-model extended states | | 37 | Spacetime Penrose inequality | | 48 | Nonexistence of Landau–Siegel zeros | | 52 | Baum–Connes | | 78 | Abundance | | 80 | Hadwiger | | 87 | Bose–Einstein condensation | | 92 | Two-dimensional entanglement area law | |
|
| ▲ | magicalist 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > the top 500 open problems in math At least put a disclaimer for the ad for this site, and maybe disclose how you came up with a total ordering for "top" open problems (vibes)? > How problems are ranked. LLMs compare pairs of problems. A reliability-weighted model combines those judgments into the ranking, with calibration across model families. The model-family weights are OpenAI 1.00, Claude 1.00, GLM 0.95, and DeepSeek 0.90. These are modeling choices, not measured probabilities of correctness. |
| |
| ▲ | reasonableklout 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Now I'm curious if there is such a site or article that ranks open problems based on votes from human mathematicians. |
|
|
| ▲ | optimalsolver 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Was anyone in the math community aware of the inbound tsunami at the beginning of the year? |
| |
| ▲ | AnotherGoodName an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Lots. To give an example Terrance Tao was lambasted skeptics on this site for stating it in 2024. https://unlocked.microsoft.com/ai-anthology/terence-tao/ " I expect, say, 2026-level AI, when used properly, will be a trustworthy co-author in mathematical research, and in many other fields as well. Then what? That depends not just on the technology, but on how existing human institutions and practices adapt. How will research journals change their publishing and referencing practices when entry-level math papers for AI-guided graduate students can now be generated in less than a day—and with the far better accuracy of future AI tools? How will our approach to graduate education change? Will we actively encourage and train our students to use these tools? We are largely unprepared to address these questions. There will be shocking demonstrations of AI-assisted achievement and courageous experiments to incorporate them into our professional structures. But there will also be embarrassing mistakes, controversies, painful disruptions, heated debates, and hasty decisions." He's pretty damn smart that guy. | | |
| ▲ | mianos an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > He's pretty damn smart that guy.
This is probably the understatement of the year. I am literally ROFLing. | |
| ▲ | aaron695 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | aureianimus 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was at the workshop that resulted in the Leiden Declaration in Fall 2025. The majority vibe was that this was inevitable, but hard to predict whether it would be in one year or 30 years. | |
| ▲ | efficient_dairy 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I guess they showed this to the advisory group they created. I guess the group tried reading the work for a day and they could only think of telling them to release the results to the community. I now understand why the group had this suggestion. | |
| ▲ | 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | thrance 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I predicted, over 2 years ago, that theorem proving would fall way before other problems that people believe are harder. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41072330 | | |
| ▲ | bice 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a Wired Magazine article from either the late 90s or early 2000s that made a prediction that this sort of thing would eventually be possible, likely within my lifetime. I believe the context was "distributed computing" models of the time, like SETI. I've never been able to find that article as an adult, but I would love to know who wrote it. | |
| ▲ | mag7269 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fucking even called LEAN the “hottest shit under the sun”—which it is. You, legend you! |
| |
| ▲ | pseudohadamard an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And do any of them actually matter? Will the fact that Noodleheinz's Third Postulate now has a proof affect anyone? |
|
|
| ▲ | k2xl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Result 003 (Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis), from my reading of mathematicians reactions, is a landmark discovery. |
| |
| ▲ | omoikane 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you mean this one? https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/The-Quasi... I thought it was interesting that it said "This paper was written with human assistance", unlike this other Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis preprint that didn't have the same disclaimer. https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/The-Quasi... | |
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yeah if it holds up, is the biggest result in number theory in 200 years | | |
| ▲ | JoshuaZ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Number theorist here. This is a massive big deal, and would likely be a Fields Medal for a human if a human had done it. But it is an exaggeration to say it is the biggest result in 200 years. At a minimum, it is hard to argue that it is a bigger result than the proof of the prime number theorem in 1896 (which this is a strengthening of), or Riemann's original 1859 paper where he laid out the zeta function and its analytic importance, or Dirichlet's proof of infinitely many primes in arithmetic progressions which is the late 1830s. But yeah, this is still a very big deal. Among other things, it will drastically improve all sorts of Rosser-Schoenfeld type results for the PNT and that's just a start. For comparison, I have a paper form 2018 where this result would cut 3 pages out and make the full result cleaner and much tighter, and there are likely hundreds of papers like this. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | anematode 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dear lord that website is laggy |
| |
| ▲ | manquer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At this rate solving P=NP is going to be easier than solving front end perf … | | |
| ▲ | m_mueller 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | wait, maybe this is the same problem.... with non-polynomial side being represented as the frontend programmer's constant need for more performance to do the same task... | | | |
| ▲ | echelon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please let P=NP, Please let P=NP Whomever is running this simulation, please. | | |
| |
| ▲ | vector_spaces 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not to mention it's got that signature Claude Clutter UI design | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | zone411 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| By category in the top 500: +----------------------------------------------------+------+---------+-----------------+
| Category | Full | Partial | Matched / total |
+----------------------------------------------------+------+---------+-----------------+
| Geometry and topology | 25 | 7 | 32 / 74 |
| Algebra, representation and category theory | 17 | 2 | 19 / 53 |
| Analysis and PDE | 11 | 6 | 17 / 40 |
| Number theory and arithmetic geometry | 4 | 13 | 17 / 117 |
| Probability, ergodic theory and dynamics | 11 | 5 | 16 / 37 |
| Combinatorics and discrete geometry | 7 | 2 | 9 / 34 |
| Theoretical computer science | 4 | 4 | 8 / 57 |
| Mathematical physics | 5 | 1 | 6 / 19 |
| Applied and computational mathematics | 2 | 2 | 4 / 8 |
| Quantum information and computation | 2 | 1 | 3 / 17 |
| Cryptography, coding, information and optimization | 1 | 1 | 2 / 26 |
| Logic, foundations and set theory | 1 | 1 | 2 / 18 |
+----------------------------------------------------+------+---------+-----------------+
| Total | 90 | 45 | 135 / 500 (27%) |
+----------------------------------------------------+------+---------+-----------------+
|
| |
