| ▲ | ekjhgkejhgk 13 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Just the other day I was thinking, if unsupervised maths will descend into "oops we found a bug in some code, branch XYZ of maths is no longer true". | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | literalAardvark 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
If you go far enough to the edge that's already how math works, since everything is very interpretation-sensitive. There is however a new problem of scale. Erdös was a human and still managed to create work for an entire generation of mathematicians, how much of a mess will an automathician create? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jjgreen 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
c.f. Italian differential geometry | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rapsey 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Sure but if the results have practical implications then the validity will be self evident. If they do not, not much of consequence has been lost. Interesting that math gets so much attention, when actual advances to material science, biology and chemistry have much higher ramifications and economic benefits. I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||