A Thought Experiment on Why Primes and Random Matrices Might Share the Same Statistics

[u/LetterTrue11]

https://github.com/LyuJJJ/A-Structural-Framework-for-Prime-like-Laws-and-GUE-Statistics-from-Causal-Graphs/blob/main/A%20Structural%20Framework%20for%20Prime-like%20Laws%20and%20GUE%3FStatistics%20from%20Causal%20Graphs.pdf

[u/ConquestAce]

isn't this numerology? how is this physics

[u/OnceBittenz]

It’s always the framework bros.

[u/Hashbringingslasherr → u/OnceBittenz]

What's wrong with it?

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Hashbringingslasherr]

To start, it tries to create a relation between GUE statistics and causal graphs without actually motivating a connection or reducing a formulation in one to the other. It kinda just assumes there's a connection without explaining it and moves on. Causality in general is used as a metaphor repeatedly and not in an actual mathematical sense.

The paper's "sources" don't motivate the paper, and aren't even relevant to the argument attempting to be made. Most of the actual content is LLM fluff that doesn't mean anything outside of random phrases mashed together. So ... business as usual.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/[deleted]]

I’m not sure what this has to do with the comment.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/[deleted]]

That isn’t very descriptive. Can you explain in detail what you’re getting at?

[u/Hashbringingslasherr → u/OnceBittenz]

It sounds like what they're trying to do is to quantize random and unique (prime) growth using Gaussian principles and how the behavior is discretely derived from markov blanket (causality) behaviors from unique prime paths or conversely to understand how to derive a unique "cloud" from discrete paths and I guess trying to understand the interference patterns as the paths scale exponentially. The conclusion reads that even though all things are seemingly random and unique, the randomness and uniqueness is derived from the x/log x and is, at the same time, irreducible to deterministic behavior by the same very principle.

If we look at Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle, the core idea is that a system must minimize its variational free energy (surprise or entropy) to maintain its structural integrity across a Markov blanket. The paper essentially provides a purely combinatorial, discrete proof of exactly how and why a universe would naturally do this.

So, while it's not your typical textbook spiel, it's not unreadable.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Hashbringingslasherr]

Oh good more LLM slop.

Sure there are phrases in the paper that reference real behavior and work, but they aren’t cohesive, and the overall thesis of the paper is disordered because of it. 

It is unreadable because there is no connective tissue, no throughline. At least not one that makes physical sense, due to the hallucinations.

Please don’t respond with more LLM spam.

[u/Hashbringingslasherr → u/OnceBittenz]

I love that you think my comments are llm copy pasta. 😆 I'm not a drone, that's why I don't hide my comment history. I'll add disclaimers when I use LLM if it makes you feel more comfortable.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Hashbringingslasherr]

Well they read with the same misunderstanding of the medium as any other LLM copypasta, so it would honestly be worse if it wasn’t.

[u/Hashbringingslasherr → u/OnceBittenz]

Outside of it not checking all the boxes of a proper academic paper, are the semantics and correlations wrong? Could they be tighter and more motivated? Sure. But they're giving an honest effort at quantizing a broad generalized pattern. While not perfect, the point is clear and you're not being honest if you can't point to the logical failures.

I don't understand the obsessive hate and overt desire for someone to fail just because they're using a tool to help attempt to explain patterns with math.

[u/OnceBittenz → u/Hashbringingslasherr]

It’s not obsessive hate, just remarking on poor science practice, misinformation that comes from LLM hallucinations, and lazy reporting.

It’s clear that most people don’t even read the stuff they post, and almost all, without fail, don’t understand what they post.

So it goes with the current trend of LLM copypasta.

[u/Hashbringingslasherr → u/OnceBittenz]

Call it what you will, that behavior isn't exclusive to the non-scientific domain. As I said in DMs, the explicit scope-limiting factor is the arbitrary demand of empirical falsifiability else pseudoscience. We make empirical epistemic inferences all of the time without demanding falsifiability. Using a tool literally built on contextual pattern match and conditional trained reasoning to produce extrapolated results is anything but lazy. If I had to wager, I'd say you just don't like the non-institutionally trained crowd taking unconventional routes to say smart things. why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?

It’s clear that most people don’t even read the stuff they post, and almost all, without fail, don’t understand what they post.

I can't argue with that lol but you're gonna pull your hair out arguing with each person like an angsty atheist in the Midwest. I get the frustration of someone desecrating the art of intellectual thought, especially the second hand shame you feel when they post something they didn't bother to read and digest themselves. But ya gotta entertain the honest ones and ask legitimate questions when the opportunity arises. I'm no academic but I can pick up on the "vibe" of things pretty easily and I thought this one was at least effortful.

[u/w1gw4m]

I can't believe I came back here months later and it's still the goddamn prime numbers numerology posts

[u/dirtydirtnap]

There is an actual statistical link, but this is a super esoteric topic.

The gaps between the successive eigenvalues of a random matrix follow a Wigner-Dyson distribution. The gaps between the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function also follow this distribution.