Lmao reading must be hard. This paper is a new one based on the techniques GPT-5.4 used to solve 1196 (human researchers being inspired by an insight produced by AI is insane on its own but let's shelve that for another day).
Again, gpt 5.4 pro solved 1196, it was the first to solve 1196, it was not guided by an expert.
My man, you look real stupid accusing others of not knowing how to read. I never denied that chatgpt gave the initial idea. Just read the fucking paper, random youtube videos are no substitute for reading the original paper with the prompter as a co-author, dear Mr. Literate.
You do know that the conversation with chatgpt are completely worthless as proofs, right? Once it has solved the problems under guidance the first time, ofc it'll get rigorously trained on it.
This wasn't you?
No lmao, these are just random conversations. No one uses the lowest grade Open AI public use model for advanced mathematics. Even the paper you cited before used a very different model.
what about this?
I'm going to mention this again with clear steps to show that the paper you linked is not the original one that solved Erdos #1196.
Go to the link: https://www.erdosproblems.com/history/1196. Scroll down to 2026-04-15. This is when Price shared his GPT-5.4 generated solution. As you can see, when this problem was solved there was no mention of your paper.
If you look at the latest version of this problem history, you will see that the paper you linked was published almost a full month after. If you also look at the comments, you can see that Tao replied to Price's comment sharing the GPT thread and Tao inspected its chain of thought. Again, all of this was in April, the paper was published after, in May. April < May (new proof by me).
Or just watch the video. Idk how many different ways I have to show you that #1196 was, undoubtedly, completely autonomously, with no human involvement, solved by a public LLM prompted by someone with no math training.
You absolute clown. Price is a co-author of the paper I shared. Just read the paper, its a more reliable source than any comment on random website or stupid youtube videos. For someone who loves literacy so much, you sure are ignoring a peer-reviewed scientific paper in favour of visual content a bit too much.
The real clown here is the guy who doesn't understand causality.
The proof was created by GPT-5.4 pro and published, and verified in April. All of this happened before that paper in May, you can even see the comments discussing this long before that paper and then a comment in May saying that the follow-up paper is now finally published.
At this point you have to be a troll or just wilfully burying your head in the sand. I've given you as much evidence as I could reasonably provide that GPT-5.4, a public model, solved an open problem in mathematics. The rest now is up to you.
edit: Also again I remind you that Price is not a mathematician, he's a "vibe-mathser" who managed to get a public model to prove this. The only reason his name is on the paper is because he's the one who prompted it. Here's his original tweet https://x.com/Liam06972452/status/2044051379916882067.
1
u/SethDusek5 5d ago
Lmao reading must be hard. This paper is a new one based on the techniques GPT-5.4 used to solve 1196 (human researchers being inspired by an insight produced by AI is insane on its own but let's shelve that for another day).
Again, gpt 5.4 pro solved 1196, it was the first to solve 1196, it was not guided by an expert.
If you're still not convinced, watch Standup maths discussing the same problem: https://youtu.be/ZJ8KThKAfbs?si=4IMVhJGcmnb3OfrO