[ibarrajo]

I’ve been math-vibe coding a few months now.

It’s surprisingly easy to do with AI. The hard part has been manually verifying and validating the results. I took one of the smaller findings (disproving a conjecture) and wrote a paper as my first endeavor into publishing.

Because the next few findings i have in the pipeline are substantial in the field of quantum topology and physics im taking some time to publish them with a ton of scrutiny. And verification has taken more time than it did to make the discoveries.

Here’s my first piece if anybody is interested in number theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09793

[physicsguy]

I'm a phyicist by training and have published in the past but I left academia and so haven't for a number of years now.

I tried out using Claude to do some physics problem solving - mix of maths and simulation - and ended up with it getting in quite a mess. It's incredible at setting things up, suggesting approaches you might not have considered. I found it much much worse at interpreting things.

[danabramov]

How much do you try to understand while doing it? I.e. how many levels of abstraction down in your own understanding do you go vs vibing at the surface level?

[igravious]

i'm doing the same thing but for type theory

[potsandpans]

This is very interesting to me. Care to share your process?

[igravious]

one agent to write the C code, one agent to write the Agda code, and an agent to bridge the two and make sure that the C code does what the Agda code says it does.

https://gitlab.com/igravious/lettuce.git

[potsandpans]

Sounds cool. Your repo might be private, I can't view it.