Good to see they're engaging with the mathematical community, even if they had to be publicly shamed into doing so.
karahime
Extremely unfortunate that gate keeping got to the point where they felt the need to ask for permission to share math.
ravenical
https://github.com/openai/math
binlog
So happy this is shared on GitHub rather than some gatekeeping paid journal. Truly a new age for science.
rafterydj
I don't know, this does not feel like the message hit OpenAI where it needed to hit, if this is their primary response.
k2xl
Can someone knowledgeable about the subject outline the most significant portions of the results?
sebmellen
It’s fascinating to read through the reasoning traces: https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/reasoning_traces Look at one of their examples of an initial prompt: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/reasoning_traces/re...
ed
Actual results: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/overview.pdf
gizmodo59
This is significant progress and released without all the drama. Some very important progress in Reinmann, Hodge and unique games theorem. Point the repo to your agent and ask for the significance! In a way this is probably 50-100 years of math progress by humans
enoether
Unique Games Conjecture [0] is a seminal conjecture in Complexity Theory, and is an underlying assumption for many, many inapproximability results. A valid proof is a big deal! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_games_conjecture [1] https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/The-Uniqu...
Catloafdev
This is a pretty hilarious thing to read juxtaposed with AGMAI's requests. Basically "Here you go, have fun with this, fuck all your demands, by the way we're gonna be releasing the model stay tuned!"
open592
Let's hypothetically say I'm a PHD student who is half way through my studies and I have a halfway written version of one of these "preprints" - what do I do? Seems like a lot of PHD students are doing to have to pivot the entire structure of their PHD studies? Or just produce something which is already written by OpenAI?
ks2048
I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result, even if just a preliminary review. (I’m assuming they didn’t just pipe their model output directly to the internet and these had some amount of review?)
aaraujo002
The Advisory Group states in its recommendations [1]: "We want to state clearly from the start: we do not endorse this practice, and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models." To me, this is a take against progress so that mathematicians can keep their jobs. What would we do if, instead of math, we were talking about diseases? Are we going to keep diseases around so that doctors can keep their jobs too? [1] https://agmai.org/general-sep29/
pavitheran
From the GitHub description: “On average, each result used 3 hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking compute”
mathisfun123
With so many results in so many different areas no way they even remotely spot checked well enough. Prediction: one of these is wrong and this (publicity stunt) will backfire. Edit: don't tell me about lean. For lean to function as a proof certificate you need to represent the theorem correctly. Again: good luck doing that across such a broad swath of problems.
dekhn
I'm a software engineering/biology/ML guy who loves when clever math ideas get turned into real solutions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing ). I am curious if any of the results have immediate applications in any kind of engineering or science. It's fine if not, but it'd be great if even just one of these helped us solve a long-running problem.
prideout
This includes a proof of Barnette's Conjecture, which is one of the graph theory conjectures that I tried attacking with SOTA models a few months ago. I like it because it is easy to understand with a basic knowledge of graph theory. I spent quite a bit of time on it and failed. Their proof looks approachable at first glance. https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/Paired-st...
kingstnap
Some of these are interesting ngl. 109. Integer multiplication below n log n Surprising that this is possible. 158. The Euclidean plane cannot be colored with five colors. Only 6 and 7 remain! 376. Universal computation in forced Navier–Stokes flows. Morning coffee proven turing complete
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 97.1ms across 8,687 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
Discussion Highlights (19 comments)
senderista
Good to see they're engaging with the mathematical community, even if they had to be publicly shamed into doing so.
karahime
Extremely unfortunate that gate keeping got to the point where they felt the need to ask for permission to share math.
ravenical
https://github.com/openai/math
binlog
So happy this is shared on GitHub rather than some gatekeeping paid journal. Truly a new age for science.
rafterydj
I don't know, this does not feel like the message hit OpenAI where it needed to hit, if this is their primary response.
k2xl
Can someone knowledgeable about the subject outline the most significant portions of the results?
sebmellen
It’s fascinating to read through the reasoning traces: https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/reasoning_traces Look at one of their examples of an initial prompt: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/reasoning_traces/re...
ed
Actual results: https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/overview.pdf
gizmodo59
This is significant progress and released without all the drama. Some very important progress in Reinmann, Hodge and unique games theorem. Point the repo to your agent and ask for the significance! In a way this is probably 50-100 years of math progress by humans
enoether
Unique Games Conjecture [0] is a seminal conjecture in Complexity Theory, and is an underlying assumption for many, many inapproximability results. A valid proof is a big deal! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_games_conjecture [1] https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/The-Uniqu...
Catloafdev
This is a pretty hilarious thing to read juxtaposed with AGMAI's requests. Basically "Here you go, have fun with this, fuck all your demands, by the way we're gonna be releasing the model stay tuned!"
open592
Let's hypothetically say I'm a PHD student who is half way through my studies and I have a halfway written version of one of these "preprints" - what do I do? Seems like a lot of PHD students are doing to have to pivot the entire structure of their PHD studies? Or just produce something which is already written by OpenAI?
ks2048
I think they should put human names on the papers as someone who has reviewed the result, even if just a preliminary review. (I’m assuming they didn’t just pipe their model output directly to the internet and these had some amount of review?)
aaraujo002
The Advisory Group states in its recommendations [1]: "We want to state clearly from the start: we do not endorse this practice, and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models." To me, this is a take against progress so that mathematicians can keep their jobs. What would we do if, instead of math, we were talking about diseases? Are we going to keep diseases around so that doctors can keep their jobs too? [1] https://agmai.org/general-sep29/
pavitheran
From the GitHub description: “On average, each result used 3 hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking compute”
mathisfun123
With so many results in so many different areas no way they even remotely spot checked well enough. Prediction: one of these is wrong and this (publicity stunt) will backfire. Edit: don't tell me about lean. For lean to function as a proof certificate you need to represent the theorem correctly. Again: good luck doing that across such a broad swath of problems.
dekhn
I'm a software engineering/biology/ML guy who loves when clever math ideas get turned into real solutions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing ). I am curious if any of the results have immediate applications in any kind of engineering or science. It's fine if not, but it'd be great if even just one of these helped us solve a long-running problem.
prideout
This includes a proof of Barnette's Conjecture, which is one of the graph theory conjectures that I tried attacking with SOTA models a few months ago. I like it because it is easy to understand with a basic knowledge of graph theory. I spent quite a bit of time on it and failed. Their proof looks approachable at first glance. https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/Paired-st...
kingstnap
Some of these are interesting ngl. 109. Integer multiplication below n log n Surprising that this is possible. 158. The Euclidean plane cannot be colored with five colors. Only 6 and 7 remain! 376. Universal computation in forced Navier–Stokes flows. Morning coffee proven turing complete