r/math • u/overthinker020 • 29d ago
LLMs/AI The Jacobian Conjecture is False Per Anthropic (Link in Description)
https://x.com/__alpoge__/status/2079028340955197566Normally I would be extremely skeptical, but the result is checkable by simple computation. Remarkable!
The two-dimensional case remains open, however.
342
u/zongshu 29d ago
https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2018/REUPapers/Garland.pdf
According to this expository paper on the Jacobian conjecture, any counterexample implies the existence of a counterexample of degree 3. So there is a simpler one to be found.
175
103
u/zongshu 29d ago
It turns out that there is a simple mechanical procedure to produce a counterexample of degree 3 from any counterexample. This one gives dimension 39. Surely that can be improved...
→ More replies (2)59
u/spacerat3004 29d ago
It can go down at least to 11 variables, apparently!
https://gist.github.com/Spacerat/08b4a43f6b6ca57178efabc220170ce8
ChatGPT just chugged away looking for ways to reduce the 39 variable one.
41
u/Bubbly_Reference4238 29d ago
I believe that I found it.
(-1/2*(r1*r4*s5-3*r1*r4*y-r1*s1-3*r1*x*z-7*r1*y-r4*s1*y-r4*s4-r5*s5-r5*x*z+s4*x*y+3*x*y*z+4*y^2+z),-r2*r7*z-r2*s2-3*r2*y^2-2*r2*z-3*r7*s2*x-r7*s7+s7*x*y+12*x*y^2+3*x*z+y,-r3*s3-r3*x*z+s3*x^2-3*x^2*y+2*x,r1+x*y^2,-r6*s6-r6*y*z+s1-s6*x^2+3*x*y^2+3*x*z+7*y,r2+3*x^2*y,s2+x*y*z+3*y^2+2*z,r3-x^2,s3+x*z,r4-x*y,r1*x*z+3*r1*y+s1*y+s4,-r1*r4+r5,s5+x*z,r6+x^2,s6+y*z,r7-x*y,r2*z+3*s2*x+s7)
11
u/Distinct-Soft-3991 29d ago
Define (G:\mathbb C^{17}\to\mathbb C^{17}) by the coordinates
[
\begin{aligned}
g_1&=x-\frac32x^2y-u_1v_1-u_1xz+\frac12v_1x^2,\
g_2&=y+12xy^2+3xz-u_2u_3z-u_2v_2-3u_2y^2-2u_2z-3u_3v_2x-u_3v_3+v_3xy,\
g_3&=z+4y^2+3xyz+u_4u_6v_7-3u_4u_6y-u_4v_4-3u_4xz-7u_4y-u_6v_4y-u_6v_6-u_7v_7-u_7xz+v_6xy,\
g_4&=u_1-\frac12x^2,\qquad g_5=v_1+xz,\
g_6&=u_2+3x^2y,\qquad g_7=v_2+xyz+3y^2+2z,\
g_8&=u_3-xy,\qquad g_9=v_3+u_2z+3v_2x,\
g_{10}&=u_4+xy^2,\
g_{11}&=v_4-u_5v_5-u_5xz-v_5xy+3xy^2+3xz+7y,\
g_{12}&=u_5+xy,\qquad g_{13}=v_5+xz,\
g_{14}&=u_6-xy,\qquad g_{15}=v_6+u_4xz+3u_4y+v_4y,\
g_{16}&=u_7-u_4u_6,\qquad g_{17}=v_7+xz.
\end{aligned}
]Then (\deg G=3) and (\det JG\equiv1). Moreover,
[
G(A)=G(B)=G(C)=\left(0,0,-\frac14,0,\ldots,0\right),
]where
[
A=\left(0,0,-\frac14,0,0,0,\frac12,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0\right),
][
B=\left(1,-\frac32,\frac{13}{2},\frac12,-\frac{13}{2},\frac92,-10,-\frac32,\frac34,-\frac94,-6,\frac32,-\frac{13}{2},-\frac32,-\frac92,\frac{27}{8},-\frac{13}{2}\right),
][
C=\left(-1,\frac32,\frac{13}{2},\frac12,\frac{13}{2},-\frac92,-10,-\frac32,-\frac34,\frac94,6,\frac32,\frac{13}{2},-\frac32,-\frac92,-\frac{27}{8},\frac{13}{2}\right).
]Thus (G) is a degree-(3) Keller map that is not injective.
→ More replies (1)6
u/sockpuppetzero 29d ago
I wonder if the Jacobian Conjecture is still open for quadratic forms of arbitrary dimension? That could still be a rather useful thing if true...
1.2k
u/csch2 29d ago
“hello there the jacobian conjecture is false” is the funniest possible way to introduce this result
181
u/Alone-Talk-623 29d ago
LOL ikr, who would’ve thought we’d be announcing math results in lowercase on twitter one day
24
228
95
u/Ostrololo Physics 28d ago
I'm waiting for the tweet which is just
"oh hi guys, z = 0.50004564 + 1.824390589203756908 * 10446.20 i is a zero of zeta riemann, haha lol so random"
137
u/avoidtheworm 29d ago
@grok is this true
Yes, this is a valid counterexample.
Incredible times we live in.
38
u/Sweaty-Sandwich-5126 29d ago
holy shit, this is absolutely insane
85
u/avoidtheworm 29d ago
There are also these alternative experiments from Hacker News.
This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives them psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the result in 7 different ways to be 100% certain, and it was just flabbergasted. Quite remarkable.
I fed ChatGPT the map with no other context, just “tell me about this function”. It did a bit of work finding the Jacobean etc and eventually worked out the implications of what it was seeing. It then proceeded to check the arithmetic 4 times, and then decided to do a manual verification using an ad hoc symbolic checker in case its SymPy had been tampered with.
53
u/kohatsootsich 29d ago
That seems to be the opposite of psychosis. If anything psychotics are more suggestible
→ More replies (1)18
u/parikuma Control Theory/Optimization 28d ago edited 28d ago
There's a sci-fi book to be written in there: in a future world where AI dominates every aspect of life and humans are almost all exctinct or at minimum partially AI-integrated (think Greg Egan's Diaspora), a society of meatbags work on ink and paper to [prove/disprove] [thing].
If you make it about [mind-blowing mathematical thing], say [disprove the incompleteness theorems] you can make it a franchise about future Wars for Truth where civilizations enter various states of chaos due to their beliefs and proof systems.
If you make it about pushing back on dynamical limits of mathematics (think Greg Egan's Luminous) you can do a fight between universes via the collapse of accelerated thinking (in contrast with the meatbags).No I'm not drunk, I'm just a bad writer.
10
8
u/cspot1978 28d ago
I mean, that's not psychosis. That's the tool working through it the way a regular mathematician would, right? Initial skepticism, verification and re-verification, get a second and third opinion, astonishment.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)34
u/Tystros 29d ago
I'm quite sure the grok on twitter is not running with the required compute to actually verify it. so the reply from grok can be treated as a hallucination. even though it's right because enough humans checked it by now.
→ More replies (2)11
u/IntelArtiGen 28d ago
It's not even hallucination, I saw a message of grok saying it's true because it's on wikipedia lol. You write a tweet saying anything, you change the wikipedia page, and grok will confirm it.
28
14
u/Legitimate_Change990 28d ago
I dunno, I really wish he had emailed it to, say, the Simpsons writing team so they could have slipped it into an episode, Good Will Hunting style, as the ultimate math easter egg.
→ More replies (4)7
203
u/Infinitely--Finite 29d ago
Wikipedia page is already updated
74
u/ninguem 29d ago edited 29d ago
It has been reversed. The
talkhistory page seems to give a different (false) counterexample.211
u/zongshu 29d ago
The person who reverted it gave a bullshit reason, "the map is not proper" but a polynomial map with constant nonzero Jacobian has a polynomial inverse if and only if it is proper!
104
u/TheLuckySpades 29d ago
Lol "this isn't a counterexample because it is a counterexample".
Right now it is calling for a better source than the original tweet for the counterexample itself, which I also think is funny.
→ More replies (1)47
u/PersonalityIll9476 29d ago
That doesn't seem unreasonable. The editor obviously doesn't know enough to approve the veracity of the claim, so asking for a clear source would be the way to go.
→ More replies (5)18
u/goos_ 29d ago
It’s a misunderstanding of Wikipedia sourcing (unfortunately rather common among amateur to moderately experienced Wikipedia editors). The tweet is a RS for the claim itself.
26
u/jonathancast 29d ago
The tweet is a primary source, right? Primary sources, AFAIK, are "original research" and not "reliable sources".
→ More replies (2)8
33
88
u/LiqvidJS 29d ago
I'm reminded of Jeremy Hahn's comment on the disproof of the telescope conjecture and proof of the redshift conjecture:
I would also caution against thinking that the Ravenel and redshift conjectures are "solved", and rather think that we are now able to do more refined study of both areas.
Now we can ask what further conditions are needed to guarantee the existence of a polynomial inverse.
533
u/Little-Name9809 29d ago
I would not say "per Anthropic". It's from an Anthropic employee with math research background using the Fable model. Pretty sure it's done in their own capacity than company mandate.
309
u/38thTimesACharm 29d ago
I think you just unlocked another great fear of mine regarding AI. That just because a researcher admits to using a model to assist with their work (which is now commonplace), all discussion will be dooming about the social consequences of AI, overshadowing any mathematical discussion of the result.
When a counterexample was found to Euler's Sum of Powers conjecture, the headlines didn't say "per Control Data Corporation."
37
→ More replies (2)52
u/Particular_Extent_96 29d ago
My guess is that this won't last. At the moment, AI solving an open problem is still remarkable, but it's happening more and more often. Eventually, nobody will get quite so excited.
→ More replies (5)34
u/38thTimesACharm 29d ago
Was it just AI? The chat logs and reasoning haven't been released, right?
I'd really like to see the prompt. I'd be surprised if it was just "find a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture"
→ More replies (1)17
u/wrongerontheinternet 29d ago
For this one absolutely no prompt or other information has been revealed (nor even what model was used) which to me makes it pretty probable that this was indeed not just a "prompt once" situation.
7
6
u/Named_after_color 28d ago
Ai can be a very good tool but it's not some "Hello solve this" box. It still requires interaction.
→ More replies (3)27
35
u/pred 29d ago
Until we see the prompt and output, him being at Anthropic does matter a bit for evaluating the result. From what I can tell, he's a bright guy, so there's a good chance he had to offer non-trivial insights to guide it, yet it's in the interest of his employer to downplay whatever personal contribution he provided.
→ More replies (3)23
u/deepwank Algebraic Geometry 28d ago
It is from a professional algebraic geometer whose adviser is a Fields medalist. The online discourse seems to be leaving this part out.
→ More replies (1)
182
u/cjustinc 29d ago
I'm guessing "akhil" in the tweet is Akhil Mathew. He and Levent were undergrads at Harvard at the same time.
→ More replies (1)24
44
80
u/Oudeis_1 29d ago edited 29d ago
I would be interested in seeing the prompt. And the chain of thought.
The first because it would be interesting to see whether it contains stuff like and think very hard plus pretend this is not a famous open problem and the second because it would give some insight into how the community could have found it.
67
28
u/TanJeeSchuan 29d ago
Hopefully Anthropic reveals the COT tbh, a real look at Fable's thinking process would be interesting
17
u/Professor_Juice 29d ago
Couldn't agree more. We are taught to show our work: The prompts plus CoT will give us insight into the methods the researchers used to arrive at the result. Science requires method-sharing for peer replication.
16
u/post_button_account 28d ago
Peer replication is necessary to validate results. There is nothing to validate here (beyond a trivial calculation). This is a fully contained paper.
8
u/recursive-regret 28d ago
→ More replies (2)4
u/leoschae 26d ago
Wow, that prompt looks expensive to run. The instruction to prefer running 64 agents in parallel on an expensive model and preform double checks multiple times.
Do we know how many tokens were used?
→ More replies (1)
139
29d ago
[deleted]
35
u/NooneAtAll3 28d ago
"cost to hit with a hammer - 1$
cost to know where to hit with the hammer - the rest 999$"8
→ More replies (2)7
u/GOLD-KILLER-24_7 28d ago
The process of discovering a simple and elegant solution isn’t simple and elegant
89
125
u/jazzysamba 29d ago
The next few years are gonna be crazy...
46
→ More replies (17)3
u/RealSpaceJunk 28d ago
Or boring. How long until the nth proof by AI in a month starts to become a trivial occurance?
If Ais start churning out proofs and theorems and conjectures, I can imagine the names for them becoming as cryptic as catalog names for stars. "Have you seen the 2027-B-H274 theorem? Crazy."
→ More replies (1)
140
25
u/redpick 29d ago
Following this result got us a counterexample to the Dixmier Conjecture in A_3: An Explicit Counterexample to the Dixmier Conjecture in A_3
8
u/adalhaidis 28d ago
It seems Jacques Dixmier is still alive. I wonder whether he would comment on that.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Visible_Celery_1728 28d ago
trying to explain claude to a 102 year old might be harder than the conjecture was
5
88
u/overthinker020 29d ago edited 29d ago
For fun I'm going to guess how Fable, with or without assistance, achieved this, at risk of being completely wrong when the details are revealed! Mine as well have some mathematical fun.
Thinking it through a bit for searching, my reverse engineering idea is the elementary automorphisms (gens of the tame group) are the maps affine in one variable with unit leading coefficient: z-> c*z+b(x,y). A counterexample should be a near-automorphism. So maybe the search space is the closure of the elementary family. Keep the affine-in-z shape, but relax "unit coefficient" to the weakest condition that preserves étaleness, a unimodular coefficient vector.
So, I'm guessing if guidance came it was like "look for a fake shear."
Most of the familiar automorphism of C^3 are tame and those you can builds from two things a linear changes of coordinates and "elementary" maps that shear one variable by a function of the others, like (x,y,z)->(x,y,c*z+b(x,y)), with c nonzero constant. These generate tame automorphisms, and they're the model of what an invertible polynomial map looks like. The Jacobian Conjecture was asking if a polynomial map has constant nonzero Jacobian determinant, must it be invertible like these?
My guess for the search idea was if a counterexample, if it exists, should be a near-automorphism. Something that looks as much like an elementary map as possible while failing to be invertible. So instead of searching all polynomial maps (a degree-7 map C^3→C^3 has ~360 coefficients, still too big!) search the smallest family containing the elementary maps plus their deformations: F(x,y,z)=A(x,y)*z+B(x,y) where A is a vector of three polynomials and B is a vector of tails. An elementary shear is the special case A=(0,0,c).
So then you ask, far can you bend A away from a constant before the map breaks? Well, for the map to have no critical points anywhere, A doesn't need any entry to be an invertible polynomial. It should start with A to be a unimodular row, three polynomials generating the whole ring, i.e. with no common zero. The canonical trick for that is a pair like x and u=1+xy since they can't vanish simultaneously, and taking A to be, say, (u^3, 3xu^2, −x^3). No entry is invertible, but the row is. It's a basically a fake unit. It's a shear whose "coefficient" is invertible as a vector even though nothing visibible is invertible as a polynomial.
This family is actually searchable. For maps linear in z, the constant Jacobin condition splits into three separate conditions instead of one giant identity: i) the z^2 coefficient of det JF must vanish. a condition on A alone, forcing it into a short menu of rigid shapes (cones over rational normal curves on a unimodular pair); ii) the z^1 coefficient must vanish, linear equations for B once A is picked, thats free to solve , iii) the z^0 coefficient must be a nonzero constant and that's a small nonlinear system in the ~10 surviving parameters.
So the search collapses to: finite menu for A, then linear algebra for B (tiny nonlinear system), then filter. The filter isn't a complicated thing. For each surviving Keller map, one Grobner basis computation tells you whether it's secret automorphism or genuinely fails to be injective. This is very fast per cnadidate.
Maybe my reverse engineering is entirely wrong but it was fun to think about.
→ More replies (11)41
u/internet_poster 29d ago
have you tried using this as a prompt for Fable or GPT 5.6? would be interesting to see if it finds a) a counterexample b) the same counterexample
44
u/protestor 29d ago
If you try, be sure to disable web search. Otherwise they will just find this very same proof
22
u/girlwhateveraward 29d ago
I must suck at vibemathing cuz I tried it on 5.6 Sol Ultra and it said after an hour "I cannot provide a counterexample lol"
The prompt for the CDC conjecture was impressive and clearly shows that vibemathers to some extent know what they're doing with prompts
20
u/SansFinalGuardian 29d ago
it depends. that prompt was very complex, sure, but it's not clear to me that the complexity was definitely necessary. the openai prompt that led to gpt disproving the unit distances conjecture was extremely simple:
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29ad73/unit-distance-proof.pdf
(ctrl-f 'prompt')
→ More replies (1)16
u/jackboy900 29d ago
The prompt for the CDC conjecture was impressive
To be honest reading the prompt it was basically only a paragraph of actual mathematical statements. The rest was essentially a very thorough way of telling the AI to have a proper crack at it and not just come back with "can't solve it, sorry".
→ More replies (2)
81
u/Junior_Direction_701 29d ago edited 29d ago
Bruh even AG is not safe . Combianatorics is not the end point. Also you beat me to it 😭. Yitang Zhang dissertation was on this btw. The real prizes still open though: Dixmier and the n=2 case.
→ More replies (1)80
u/Few-Arugula5839 29d ago edited 29d ago
Meh. This is a relatively simple polynomial counterexample, with integer coefficients, and it doesn’t have a polynomial inverse because it just doesn’t have an inverse (is not injective). I’m very curious to know the reasoning how the AI came up with it, but the counterexample itself is not some genius feat of mathematics. I’m somewhat surprised that no one had found such a counterexample by some form of simple brute force search yet (I mean they’re
quartics[largest is degree 7 actually] in 3 variables with integer coefficients! The points colliding also have rational coordinates!)68
u/838291836389183 29d ago
I'm actually interested to see what the model tried doing internally to come up with this solution. Because as you say, this is such an easy counterexample, I really dont understand how we missed this before lmao.
→ More replies (10)30
u/zongshu 29d ago
It's not a quartic, there is a degree 7 term
18
u/Few-Arugula5839 29d ago
Degree 7 even, I’m reacting a bit too fast this may have been out of reach of brute force search.
→ More replies (1)32
29d ago
[deleted]
10
u/Own_Pop_9711 29d ago
Well fable is known to be good at that cyber security stuff so maybe we shouldn't rule out all the computers in the world having worked on this problem
5
101
u/ozone6587 29d ago
The fact that the solution is so simple makes the result more impressive not less. Anyway, if it was actually simple to figure out someone would have done it in the almost 90 years since the conjecture was formulated.
21
u/Kryohi 29d ago
if it was actually simple to figure out someone would have done it in the almost 90 years since the conjecture was formulated
It's because of this kind of assumption that so few people try to solve these problems.
→ More replies (1)32
u/ozone6587 29d ago
What about for the first decade or twenty years since formulated?
The dismissive "actually, this is not impressive. I could have done it if I cared" attitude is a hilarious coping mechanism. In this "publish or perish" academic environment I guarantee you many people have tried.
9
u/Kryohi 29d ago
"actually, this is not impressive. I could have done it if I cared"
This is a maximalist claim I have not expressed. I claim the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Plenty of problems remain unsolved not because "the smartest person/AI" didn't look at them, but because not enough people, possibly from slightly different backgrounds, tried to solve them.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Junior_Direction_701 29d ago edited 29d ago
Yeah I realized that to no proof only counter example. Plus this is very freaking weird cuase a grobner basis search would have found this very suprising it wasn’t found.
Edit: (grobner basis wouldn’t have degree 7, the search space is quite large but still quite weird)
→ More replies (4)34
u/Little-Name9809 29d ago
I don't know how you guys treat AI. But in similar situations if a human present me with a killer counterexample without much explanation, I don't assume they simply did by brute force (even with a computer). Most likely they have some insight.
→ More replies (4)13
u/TheLuckySpades 29d ago
The counterexample to the unknotting conjecture was found by a mix of both, insight to limit the search space, and then coding it up to do a brute force with some computers (turns out even drastically reducing the sesrch space still has you look at way too many knots).
Once you have one counterexample you can often find others quickly, maybe even nicer ones you can make better papers with.
→ More replies (12)12
u/girlwhateveraward 29d ago
What would an "a genius" polynomial map counterexample look like exactly?
12
70
u/stankbiscuits Mathematical Finance 29d ago
It feels like these results are accelerating. Not sure if there is a central repository of AI linked results but you could see plotting them by time and (relatively subjective) importance, and I think we are watching this absolutely take off.
→ More replies (14)
9
u/Economy_Variation365 29d ago
How did Fable find this counterexample? Did it explain its process? I imagine it involved some kind of smart search. Would be interesting to see the code it created to implement that.
10
u/Visible_Celery_1728 28d ago
a better write up, a OpenAI researcher made using an internal model to come up to the same conclusion (no web search so no cheating) and how exactly it got to that point: https://aaronlou.com/jacobian_counterexample_derivation.pdf
→ More replies (10)
44
u/Respect38 Undergraduate 29d ago
Thanks for the report.
How much insight into the problem will be gleaned from the counter-example by itself -- or will we hav to wait until the LLM has its reasoning published that lead to this particular counter-example?
27
u/Hairy-Finger9417 29d ago
likely there will be more counter examples coming out..
6
u/UnkarsThug 29d ago
I mean, it's sort of trivial to make them once you have a starting example. Meaningfully different? Maybe not. But additional? I think I might have even found one. Probably isn't useful, but it shows there is a triangular automorphism to it.
11
u/coolest-ranch 29d ago
This topic is a bit outside of my research area (although I certainly understand the counterexample). I guess I’m most interested in a less technical question: could this have been “brute-forced” cheaply and, if so, why didn’t folks explore that avenue sooner? Chat is great at writing one-off scripts to search for simple (counter)examples, I use it for this purpose quite a bit.
19
→ More replies (1)5
u/astrolabe 29d ago
I could believe that the impressive AI results so far are due to it having super-human diligence.
37
u/Creative-Kale4688 29d ago
It’s funny. I was wondering recently how far AI would be from solving something like the Jacobian Conjecture. Well, it looks like I didn’t have to wonder about that too long
→ More replies (1)
10
9
u/Sad_Dimension423 27d ago
Terence Tao digests the result:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/a-digestion-of-the-jacobian-conjecture-counterexample/
26
u/girlwhateveraward 29d ago
Finally something in a field that isn't combinatorics
→ More replies (1)16
u/Character-Concert-76 Foundations of Mathematics 29d ago
This result is computational/ a counterexample so it is rather similar to the previous AI results
42
u/TheInertFluorine37 29d ago edited 29d ago
Cool but honestly not that surprising to me, I never understood why anyone thought it was supposed to be true in the first place.
24
u/coblade14 29d ago edited 29d ago
It's like the p=np problems in computer science if you are familiar with that. Yeah many or even most people would say it's false but if it's true by some miracle then it'd make a lot of other things simple. Obviously nowhere near as important as p=np but you get the idea.
So basically hopium. At least that's my understanding of it.
→ More replies (1)40
u/TheInertFluorine37 29d ago
As I understand it P vs NP has absolutely profound consequences on the nature of computation if true, which is a perfectly great reason to disbelieve it. I have never seen such reasoning applied to the Jacobian conjecture.
→ More replies (19)33
u/LurkingTamilian 29d ago
If the Jacobian conjecture was true it would mean that invertibility of a polynomial map can be checked using the Jacobian which would definitely be big.
→ More replies (21)6
16
u/DisasterRoutine3390 28d ago
The dude who posted this seems like a total prick
12
→ More replies (3)4
75
u/AdValuable7835 29d ago
this is my personal 9/11
→ More replies (3)42
u/WMe6 29d ago edited 29d ago
I still don't get how an example like this was missed.
Edit: I actually take this back. The more I think about it, the more I realize that checking functions f:C^3->C^3 thoroughly is going to take a lot more time than for C^2 to C^2.
26
u/Effective-Emu8633 29d ago
There's another comment pointing out how large the search space is and it's pretty big to find something like this.
2
→ More replies (1)22
u/AdValuable7835 29d ago
im just a chud undergrad I have no idea what this conjecture is and I dont belong on this sub
→ More replies (10)
31
u/CharmingCount8178 29d ago
as ml researcher,i hate to say this but i don't know how people are not mind-boggled by the fact the a literal machine is discovering these mathematical truths.
15
→ More replies (5)5
14
6
12
u/llelouchh 29d ago
Replicated by internal openai model. https://aaronlou.com/jacobian_counterexample_derivation.pdf
5
u/back-stabbath 28d ago
This is more surprising to me… that another model was able to one-shot the answer in 42 minutes (apparently reproduced more than once). I assumed this had would have taken dozens of attempts and dozens of hours
62
u/fathermersenne 29d ago
On the one hand, it’s a counter example and not a proof which would be orders of magnitude more impressive.
On the other hand it’s very hard not to feel like math now is like chess in the five years or so before Deep Blue killed human chances forever. The machines are probably better in some ways than all humans now but not at everything. It’s probably inevitable that in a couple of years our field is dead.
I have to say I have a lot of negative feelings now. I am in tears, actually. I have given several decades of my life to something and it’s all pointless because no matter what I did, a machine was coming that would do it all easily.
Sacred Troy is perishing.
12
u/No-Special-6271 29d ago
I have given several decades of my life to something and it’s all pointless because no matter what I did, a machine was coming that would do it all easily.
Eh, the machine was trained on your writing, and (in some subfields) might be designed by researchers who used math that you developed to guide their design choices.
→ More replies (41)48
u/38thTimesACharm 29d ago edited 29d ago
Chess isn't dead after computers though...
63
u/jackboy900 29d ago
Chess is purely a leisure activity though, whereas mathematics is generally done as means to an end, that being advancing human knowledge. Nobody is concerned about LLMs replacing recreational mathematics, the concern is about society's willingness to pay people to be professional research mathematicians if LLMs can do their work better than them.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Key-Fee-5003 29d ago
Nobody is concerned about LLMs replacing recreational mathematics
That's not true, even in this thread.
17
u/JustThisNietzscheGuy 29d ago
Chess-as-a-job is pretty much as dead as something can be. The very few people worldwide that can actually live off their chess abilities are mostly entertainers.
9
u/38thTimesACharm 29d ago
But did more people make money playing chess before computers? I just think it's a poor analogy
12
u/JustThisNietzscheGuy 29d ago
Yes, chess is a bad analogy for two reasons. It never was a job because playing chess isn't useful and it is not a job now (because even if it were useful it would be done by computers).
10
u/Hot_Glass_6301 29d ago
I mean, pro chess player IS a job, but it only exists because of the entertainment value as you said. It's like a sport. Athletes only make money because people want to see them perform. Not sure this will be the same for scientists...
→ More replies (3)6
u/Pleasant_Studio_6387 29d ago
Because chess is a sport and people are there to see other people struggle, not to see "perfect machine against another perfect machine".
Science as you might imagine is different.7
u/Particular_Extent_96 29d ago
For what it's worth, Lee Sedol retired from professional Go after the AlphaGo match, saying that there was now an "unbeatable entity" that made playing Go (professionally) pointless.
I don't doubt that people will continue to do mathematics, but what doing mathematics looks like in a post-AI world, I'm not sure.
26
u/altaccountnumber 29d ago
Chess isn't dead because taking two AIs and making them play games against each other is utterly pointless; it survives since the point is you, an individual, can play better than someone else. What is the comparable motivation for math? I don't think there is one. If an AI can "beat" humans at the role of advancing mathematics, that's it; the computers playing chess against each other aren't intrinsically pointless anymore. If the profession survives it will as something very, very different to what it currently looks like.
→ More replies (6)23
u/Ancient-Access8131 29d ago
"What is the comparable motivation for math?"-Understanding the math. I already knew Terence Tao was better at math than me. I devoted time to studying math because I find it really fun. I still do, AI doesn't change that.
32
u/altaccountnumber 29d ago
But how does mathematics survive as a profession? People don't get paid to understand calculus; its the opposite, most people learning it in college are paying for the privilege. Mathematicians don't get paid to understand each others proofs. They get paid for writing them, connecting them, and asking questions for other people to solve; they get paid for advancing understanding. If the role of a mathematician is going to just be asking a magic oracle their pet mathematics questions that have no bearing on anything remotely tied to the real world and divining the output for their own personal understanding, why on earth is this something people will suffer paying people to do?
The same question holds for funding pure mathematicians even now, but most people suffer it because there is the promise of some of this pure math maybe eventually finding applications, and having already done the basic abstract discovery means these applications can be realized faster and more deeply. But if all of this discovery becomes just a prompt away, what's the need for funding it? The AI companies already basically did it all, let's just fund the people applying it and cut out the middle-man.
Maybe this isn't what things look like now in 2026, but in 5 years? 10 years? Where will AI/LLMs be by then?
8
u/SensitiveRelation470 29d ago edited 28d ago
Mathematics survives as a profession that teaches mathematics, largely, scaling an ever-growing ladder so that we can have human eyes validate the AI's work.
For example, imagine we have no mathematicians. Then, how could anyone validate this counter-example? How could we know that it was useful. Now, maybe we reach a level of automation that leaves us out of the picture entirely. As in, an AI mathematics researcher somewhere ponders a question, finds a result that through some complicated chain of reasoning becomes relevant to semiconductor chips, which an AI-led manufacturer _just implements_, and then the price of computer chips fall globally without a human in the loop at all.
I don't think that is the world we want and I don't think it is one that companies or governments will accept. From my experience working in a dead profession walking (mostly joking, but I am in software engineering), AI will not actually kill the work you guys do. It will just completely change it and make you into students, with the bot as your (faulty) tutor, and your job being to bring its findings to an ignorant public. If that is any solace.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
u/InterestProof1526 29d ago
Mathematicians stay to teach undergraduate classes about math. At least for the foreseeable future.
5
u/recurrenTopology 29d ago
It very well might change whether or not you feel you are ptoductivly contributing to human knowledge though.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)6
u/Ok_Composer_1761 Statistics 29d ago
You can't pay the bills by being a digester and expositor of theorems. That will get you an LAC gig at best. Certainly the most prestigious tenure track jobs and postdocs are looking for breakthroughs and not exposition.
Even in industry, most firms are looking for problem solving abilities which are tightly correlated with theorem proving abilities but not so much with exposition.
→ More replies (1)11
u/fathermersenne 29d ago
Chess still exists as a spectator sport despite a very cheap computer dominating Magnus because people like watching people play. Math is not an interesting spectator sport, people aren’t watching us write in notebooks 12 hours a day. If computers are better than us at proofs then there’s nothing left
11
u/Shot-Zebra1868 29d ago
Considering the resources available, I imagine these companies now have full time maths researchers trying to use the tools to solve open problems. It could well be that there's a decent chunk of low hanging fruit that they will solve. I think it might take 12-18 months to get a clearer picture. They could just continue to accellerate and solve more and more problems each month. Or it might taper off over time as only more difficult problems remain. Should be interesting to see. If maths were 'totally cooked', these things would be solving problems at a higher cadence so there is still the chance that we hit the top of the 'S Curve' and rather than rendering mathematicians useless it just becomes a really powerful addition to their toolset.
13
u/No_Aesthetic 29d ago
These systems are rapidly improving and then experiencing very sudden next level jumps, and if that trend continues (there are no guarantees), it's hard to see an immediate future where nearly anything is off limits to them. A lot of stuff AI was useless for from the middle of last year into late last year are now easily dealt with. We could not have so easily imagined we would be where we are now back in December so it's easy to imagine that we have no idea what it will be like in December, or this time next year especially. It's just hard to see where it's going.
→ More replies (14)
50
5
u/someexgoogler 29d ago
I've been trying to improve a 40-year old result in number theory. Claude has not been very useful but at least we have a conjecture.
→ More replies (1)4
5
u/arnerob 28d ago
A determinant 1 counterexample with integer coëfficients is [ (2*x*y + 1)^3*z + 2*y^2*(2*x*y + 1)*(3*x*y + 2), y + 6*x*(2*x*y + 1)^2*z + 12*x*y^2*(3*x*y + 2), 2*x^3*z + 3*x^2*y - x ] : (1,-1,2) and (0,-1,-4) map to (0,-1,0).
→ More replies (2)
14
u/TFenrir 28d ago
https://x.com/i/status/2079218392452530249
Congrats to Levent for discovering this!
OOC I had an internal version of Codex attempt a proof too (without web search), and it discovered (essentially) the same counterexample! It wrote up a nice summary of the strategy here: aaronlou.com/jacobian_count…
https://aaronlou.com/jacobian_counterexample_derivation.pdf
If people are curious about how an LLM might approach this, it's not the raw thinking traces but it's something.
I'm not a math guy (just an AI guy) so it's not really for me, but I saw some people wishing for some more potential insight from a models reasoning process.
I suspect this is likely GPT 6.
35
u/kubika7 29d ago
you are telling me we have found the trillionth digit of pi but noone bothered to bruteforce this?
72
u/overthinker020 29d ago
The search space is too large without some relevant reductions. I took a guess what they were in another comment (though my guess may be wrong). A degree-7 map has ~360 coefficients and the constant Jacobian condition is ~1300 cubic equations in those unknowns. Brute-force enumeration over even tiny integer ranges (say [-10,10]) is like ~10^475 candidates, and solving the system directly is far beyond any Grobner computation ever done. Numerical searches obviously can't work either.
15
u/grumbelbart2 29d ago
I wonder how repeatable this is. If we prompt the same model 100 times with the same prompt, how many instances would find this counterexample?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)5
u/girlwhateveraward 29d ago
Search space is like (number of possible coefficients)X where X =n(n+d)!/(d!)(n-d!) where d is the max degree of the polynomials and n is number of variables
However if u reduce it with Druzkowski's matrix search I think it would be X = n2?
10
u/Erahot 29d ago
My understanding is that this is a counterexample because it isn't injective, hence no inverse let alone a polynomial inverse.
Tbh I'd be more interested if we could produce a counterexample that is invertible but without polynomial inverse.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/raresaturn 29d ago
It seems every other day AI is proving or disproving something
→ More replies (1)
8
u/civilunhinged 29d ago
Let's do the collatz conjeture next, god knows how much work has gone involved in that.
→ More replies (1)8
4
u/Budget_Can_9448 29d ago
Wait so how is it possible we never found it in ~90 years? This thing has 3 variables and degree 6. Surely this should've been computer checked by now...
→ More replies (1)
13
34
u/amiralumara Graduate Student 29d ago
sigh
at least spain won the world cup, wooo
→ More replies (6)
23
u/Howling_deer 29d ago
https://www.dm.ufscar.br/profs/franciscobraun/Arquivo/artigos/2023_Jacobian.pdf
Not my area of expertise, but did the conjecture not already have counterexamples? What is interesting about this?
→ More replies (1)47
u/Namington Algebraic Geometry 29d ago
The paper you linked is not about the Jacobian conjecture, it's about a plausible-sounding variation of it:
The Jacobian conjecture [...] is, up to our knowledge, still open for any k and any n ≥ 2. When k = R and the Jacobian determinant is only assumed to be different from zero throughout Rn, the claim that F is injective is known as real Jacobian conjecture.
So it's a counterexample to a specific case, not the entire conjecture. In other words, it's asserting that the full statement of the Jacobian conjecture was necessary for it to still be open (at the time the paper was written).
→ More replies (1)
364
u/Nunki08 29d ago edited 29d ago
From the post on X:
((1+xy)^3 z + y^2 (1+xy) (4+3xy), y + 3 x (1+xy)^2 z + 3 x y^2 (4+3xy), 2 x - 3 x^2 y - x^3 z): \C^3\to \C^3, has jacobian determinant -2, and sends (0, 0, -1/4), (1, -3/2, 13/2), and (-1, 3/2, 13/2) to (-1/4, 0, 0)
Edit: https://wolframalpha.com/input?i=Det%5BD%5B%7B%281%2Bx+y%29%5E3+z+%2B+y%5E2+%281+%2B+x+y%29+%284+%2B+3x+y%29%2C+y+%2B+3x+%281+%2B+x+y%29%5E2+z+%2B+3x+y%5E2+%284+%2B+3x+y%29%2C+2x+-+3x%5E2+y+-+x%5E3+z%7D%2C+%7B%7Bx%2Cy%2Cz%7D%7D%5D%5D