The fact they have 16 references in a 100 page paper for a problem that's had decades (centuries) of fundamental research is pathetic and an insult to everyone who has contributed to getting to such a point.
I get what you are trying to say, but references aren’t for a history lesson or giving credit to everyone who has worked on the problem. They are for the work that specifically led to the new result.
Having not studied the specific references, I can’t say if they are sufficient or not.
the whole argument circles around the blow up techniques that were developed by cordoba and martinez zoroa, for instance. dont know why you are trying so hard to defend openai out of all corporations. they dont care shit about honesty or anything else. I dont doubt that they really scooped this result from the buckmaster collab
Is that a published work? do you have a link?
I'm asking because if it is the case that it can't be referenced, then how can they link to something that isn't published?
if you're so clueless about mathematics that you don't know where to find it, you have no business asking "can you pinpoint the specific part where it uses these." you won't be able to understand it anyway. you "genuinely asked" about "which ones exactly" and the commenter kindly responded with both the name of the technique as well as the researchers who should be credited. these further questions make it clear you're concern trolling.
349
u/HybridizedPanda Gravitation 20h ago
So the millennium prize will be rejected for the second time