|
|
|
|
|
|
by losvedir
7 days ago
|
|
|
I'd be very cautious about "AI psychosis" here, or at the very least becoming a "crank". I've read too many stories of people convincing themselves they're on the verge of some great discovery to not hear "3 weeks to become conversational in mathematical fields" and not see all kinds of red flags. I studied math at MIT and have several friends who are professors now and they deal with cranks all the time and since they're very kind and conflict averse people they tend to respond with perfunctory emails when they get inbounds like that. So just be wary. Your external validation may not be as strong as you think it is, though kudos to you for at least trying to step out of the AI vortex to attempt to ground yourself. |
|
|
---
it's not a great discovery, it's a pretty minor question, that I thought would be easy and it's not -- i've just been poking off and on at it for weeks, and I'm relying on lean to verify everything. It's actually a quite specific CS-adjacent problem that I came up with trying to write code, that just is hard to solve, and nobody in the literature that I could find has looked at directly. The end result of it will have exactly zero consequences other than proving an interesting lower bound for a question that as far as i can tell, nobody has bothered even looking at but me. The reason it touches on multiple fields is that it's sort of both an algebra problem and a CS problem, so i keep having to flip between them to understand what I'm looking at, and there are a lot of sub-fields that span both that have different tools, and it took me a while to find the right one.