[cma]

I don't think it is dispositive, just that it likely didn't copy the proof we know was in the training set.

A) It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.

B) something similar to erdos's proof was in the training set for a different problem and had a similar alternate solution to chatgpt, and was also in the training set, which would be more impressive than A)

[CamperBob2]

It is still possible a proof from someone else with a similar method was in the training set.

A proof that Terence Tao and his colleagues have never heard of? If he says the LLM solved the problem with a novel approach, different from what the existing literature describes, I'm certainly not able to argue with him.

[mmooss]

> A proof that Terence Tao and his colleagues have never heard of?

Tao et al. didn't know of the literature proof that started this subthread.

[pvab3]

there is an immense amount of stuff out there on ArXiv that no one has ever looked at

[CamperBob2]

Right, but someone else did ("colleagues.")

[habinero]

No, they searched for it. There's a lot of math literature out there, not even an expert is going to know all of it.

[CamperBob2]

Point being, it's not the same proof.

[mmooss]

Your point seemed to be, if Tao et al. haven't heard of it then it must not exist. The now known literature proof contradicts that claim.

[heliumtera]

Does it matter if it copied or not? How the hell would one even define if it is a copy or original at this point?

At this point the only conclusion here is: The original proof was on the training set. The author and Terence did not care enough to find the publication by erdos himself