[lukol]

This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know - or an obvious pattern that emerges if you take a look at things from a far enough distance - or something that can be brute-forced into existence. All things LLMs are perfectly capable of.

In the end, creativity has always been a combination of chance and the application of known patterns in new contexts.

[dvt]

> This "new math" might be a recombination of things that we already know

If you know anything about the invention of new math (analytic geometry, Calculus, etc.), you'd know how untrue this is. In fact, Calculus was extremely hand-wavy and without rigorous underpinnings until the mid 1800s. Again: more art than science.

[jfyi]

Newton and Leibniz were "hand-waving"?

If anything, they were fighting an uphill battle against the perception of hand-waving by their contemporaries.

[dehsge]

It’s not that. Consider the definition of the limit. The idea existed for a long time. Newton/Leibniz had the idea.

That idea wasn’t formally defined until 134 years later with epsilon-delta by Cauchy. That it was accepted. (I know that there were an earlier proofs)

There’s even arguments that the limit existed before newton and lebnitz with Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi.

Cauchy’s deep understanding of limits also led to the creation of complex function theory.

These forms of creation are hand-wavy not because they are wrong. They are hand wavy because they leverage a deep level of ‘creative-intuition’ in a subject.

An intuition that a later reader may not have and will want to formalize to deepen their own understanding of the topic often leading to deeper understanding and new maths.

[dvt]

> Newton and Leibniz were "hand-waving"?

Yes, and it's pretty common knowledge that Calculus was (finally) formalized by Weierstrass in the early 19th century, having spent almost two centuries in mathematical limbo. Calculus was intuitive, solved a great class of problems, but its roots were very much (ironically) vibes-based.

This isn't unique to Newton or Leibniz, Euler did all kinds of "illegal" things (like playing with divergent series, treating differentials as actual quantities, etc.) which worked out and solved problems, but were also not formalized until much later.

[anthk]

Euclid tells me otherwise. Rules, no art, no bullshit. Rules. Humanities people somehow never get it. Is not about arithmetics.

Vibe-what? Vibe-bullshit, maybe; cathedrals in Europe and such weren't built by magic. Ditto with sailing and the like. Tons of matematics and geometry there, and tons of damn axioms before even the US existed.

Heck, even the Book of The Games from Alphonse X "The Wise" has both a compendia of game rules and even this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chess where OFC being able on geometry was mandatory at least to design the boards.

On Euclid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements

PD: Geometry has tons of grounds for calculus. Guess why.

[jfyi]

I think that I just take issue with the term "hand-waving" as equated to intuition. Yeah it lacked formal rigor, but they had a solid model that applied in detail to the real world. That doesn't come from just saying, "oh well, it'll work itself out". I guess if you want to call that "hand-wavy" we'll just have to disagree.

[anthk]

Euclid disproves every bullshit posted by LL Mediocres unable to understand that before Calculus there were proto-calculus based ideas such as Zeno's paradoxes and some writtings from Archimede which pretty much are Calculus 0.9.

Americans and British geeks/nerds are blinded down by Newton unable to realize that there was tons of previous work since the Greek and in Middle Ages, where the British love to depict as brutish people with no culture at all.

And the case is that they weren't dumb at all and without Euclid and Archimede there woudn't be any Calculus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exhaustion

[baq]

And yet nowadays you can restate all of it using just combinations of sets of sets and some logic operators.