> While this is an extremely quick verification, the construction presented in this fashion appears like a massive miracle. The polynomial {F} has degree seven, so a priori the Jacobian {\mathrm{det} DF} ought to be a polynomial in three variables of degree as large as {3 \times 6 = 18}, so the fact that all non-constant coefficients of this polynomial vanish looks like a massive cancellation involving {\binom{18+3}{3}-1 = 1329} coefficients, which is much larger than the {\binom{7+3}{3} = 120} degrees of freedom for a generic degree seven polynomial of three variables. So finding such a polynomial looks highly unlikely to be located by brute force.
Sounds like the most interesting part would be learning what approaches the LLM did use to see if that's reusable elsewhere. I'm guessing that's what the rest of the article is about? Because I also couldn't follow the maths any more.
I was reading another source that claimed this example was inspired by an existing (rational polynomial) example from the literature (created in 1999 by a Russian mathematician Vitushkin).
> The seed is almost certainly Vitushkin's old rational "counterexample."
I still can't understand all the details, but it's very interesting to read that chat. Anyway, instead of close to lore laundering, for me it's "standing on the shoulder of giants".
I don’t understand math but it was amusing seeing Terrence Tao’s chat with chatGPT. Everything Tao said was constantly followed by praise:
“That’s exactly the right way to think about it.”,
“Yes, you are exactly right.”
“You have gotten to the core issue.”
And non stop praise. Seems like sycophancy is still an issue lol.
The introduction to this piece was easy to follow, but as soon as he got into recapitulating it with algebra he lost me (because I'm bad at math). But he includes the GPT5 prompts for his conversation, which are easier to follow:
I like how he goes one-on-one with it like Gandalf fighting Yoda on fifteen planes at once for 80% of the transcript, and then we read "OK, I've activated Pro."
> Clearly one can get from Theorem 3 to Theorem 2 by composing with the isomorphism {X \cong {\bf C}^3} and using the previously mentioned fact that local injectivity implies non-zero constant Jacobian.
I'm not a mathematian but I know enough linear algebra and vector calculus to understand the conjecture. This is my interpretation:
Firstly, the determinant of the Jacobian is measuring if at any point the function is crushing space / flattening out.
If the Jacobian is a nonzero constant everywhere this means that nowhere does the the function flatten out.
A small change in X along any line will always produce a non zero change in Y. Not flattening out means that locally you can invert it.
What was conjectured is that this local invertibability property everywhere would mean global invertibility.
Turns out to not be the case.
For a simple case, the falsified conjecture is trivially true in 1D.
Specifically consider f(x) = x^2
This function happens to flatten out right at x=0. At that x coodrinate the function flattens out and folds over on itself. This fold means you can't invert x^2. It's also not locally invertible around x=0.
If a function f(x) has constant derivative evewhere then it would flatten out nowhere and it would be invertible everwhere. It would also be globally invertible.
The Jacobian conjecture was stating that the extension of this property holds in higher dimensions. That if the function had no fold in space then it would be invertible globally.
The counterexample shows that you can create a simple function in 3 variables, where the function demonstratably is invertible evewhere, but is not injective globally (they specifically show 3 points that map to the same output).
What's interesting is this is like if someone showed you a parabola where somehow you got back to the same y coordinate without a kink bending over back to itself.
it is about a purported (though incorrect) positive proof of the Jacobian conjecture in 2 dimemnsions. It is true in 1 dimension. The Fable proof is that it is false in >= 3 dimensions. 2 dimensions is still open.
Anyway, in that post it says
> It now seems that a proof has been found by Carolyn Dean of the University of Michigan, for the case of polynomials in two complex variables *(for more variables, many people believe it is not even true)*
so the resolution of this is a "surprise" in that it is a very long open with many failed proof attempts. But the direction it resolved was not surprising.
For the Jacobian determinant to be constant is a massive coincidence, in general it is some complicated and messy polynomial. The conjecture was that this coincidence couldn't happen, except for simple special cases.
So Alpoge and Fable found an example of a function that was believed to be too strange to exist.
But it does give credible plausibility to the concept that we might be mistaken about the exact boundaries of hardness for adjacent (but not equivalent) polynomial systems. Most (all?) of which have also stood up to a whole lot of undeniably sharp people poking at them for about as long.
No. This is about polynomials. The assumption that the Jacobian is nowhere zero is what is doing so much of the work. This means the Jacobian must in fact be constant. But obviously there are many mappings whose Jacobians are not constant.
It overturns the Jacobian conjecture (i.e., speculation) for dim >= 3, which we now know was an overgeneralization. Tao characterizes it as "can be viewed as an assertion that local invertibility implies global invertibility". It was already widely suspected to be false. Assuming that it was true was never warranted, so this really doesn't change anything. The significance is that an AI was able to find a relatively simple counterexample. Its "chain of thought" would be very interesting to see.
Finding a different way of thinking about a problem often leads to a breakthrough. This is what an ecosystem in nature shows us, that diversity matters in finding hard solutions. I think the great thing here is we are getting a chance to find whole new ways of thinking about problems that were hard. I suspect many old problems will fall because of it and, hopefully, some really new interesting ones will replace them.
reading through this I eventually realized a situation similar to my experience of it is what my dog sees if I attempt to explain Python programming to him.
The difference is your dog will never understand the Python code but you could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks if you really wanted to. Can we all please stop acting like this Terry guy is so special?
I certainly do not think that the average HN reader "could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks". I think the level of background information you need is something like an undergraduate degree in mathematics and at many universities that's probably not enough either.
There's a difference between understanding something and being able to do something. For example you can get a broad understanding of what calculus does in a matter of minutes: a derivative is just the rate of change of a curve, and an integral is the total area under a curve - you're practically there! Of course it'd take months of work to understand how to apply it yourself, let alone all the tricks involved, but a basic understanding of what stuff is, is very easy to obtain.
And I think that generalizes to math. Its normal presentation is completely impenetrable due to a large use of symbols and terms with no outside meaning (or, even worse, a meaning that contradicts the colloquial usage). But I think if we somehow resolved that issue, the average person would be fully capable of following along even if they're going to have to take everything at face value as opposed to being able to meaningfully understand the exact methods and tricks being used to get from A to B.
I really don’t think IQ has much to do with it. Understanding this stuff is like a skill you practice. Yes, granted, if you had a low IQ your chances of ever understanding it goes down, if you have a high IQ maybe you can gain the prerequisite understanding faster.
A lot of maths is about both being able to wrap your head around hard problems and gaining the prerequisite knowledge to make it easier to do so.
I doubt Anthropic will share the details (or at least the full true details). The mystery of the magic makes for much better marketing.
I think a reasonable assumption is that there is an interaction between an LLM, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system tool, a human prompting with deep math expertise, and lots of compute that explains hitting upon the remarkable cancellation.
I think you can reasonably assume that frontier models are using SymPy or something like it any time interesting math gets into the picture, and the person driving Fable here is an accomplished mathematician, but I don't think we can reasonably assume either extensive prompting or brute-force compute in any sense other than what it normally takes Fable to, say, whip up a calculator app.
The two big discoveries both came from the negligible handful of mathematicians working at OpenAI/Anthropic in spite of many orders of magnitude more mathematicians using them outside of the companies. I don't see any way to explain this without assuming that the limiting factor is the ability to burn a few rainforests worth of tokens in pursuit of something publishable.
I think it would also explain their opacity towards the process. Being able to solve such well known problems in a nice replicable 1-2-3 way would be far more effective marketing than their complete opacity outside of the result, which suggests that they feel transparency is not in their best interest for some reason.
Bayesian probability. Were outcomes being driven by 'normal' usage of LLMs then it's extremely improbable that both big discoveries would come from the small number of people working at the companies. That suggests working at the companies is more the decisive factor than the LLMs in and of themselves.
And what do you get from working at the company? Likely a rather massive token/processing budget. The companies opacity towards the path to these discoveries also makes this further probable as 'spend millions of dollars in tokens' is a somewhat less attractive narrative than the implied narrative of 'just use Fable.'
I have no idea what actually happened behind the scenes, but the human prompter, Levent Alpöge, indeed has deep math expertise. Princeton PhD, Harvard postdoc, and some excellent research (prior to this) to his name.
The original tweet implied that the whole thing was done while the author was watching the World Cup final.
I know it’s tempting to hope that a human did the “real” work here, but if some special insight was put into prompting, the author kept it to himself, and there is no reason why they would hide this since it would elevate their own status.
I don't think it is as much about 'real' work or a special insight as it is being willing to push back multiple times, or simply asking in a way that steers it towards actually 'giving enough of a fuck' to even bother. We tend to be ~blind to how differently we would ask about something we know compared to a novice, this is what makes some better teachers than others.
Have encountered a similar flavor in programming, wrote it off until I saw someone point out how garbage in garbage out they tend to be. If you hand any frontier model dogshit and ask it to do something simply, the result is often not great.
But! If you spend 20 minutes having it comb through and clean up with something like jscpd, then tell it to step through with a debugger, gather profiling traces, etc... very likely it will yield meaningful improvements or catch some corner cases. If it doesn't, anyone with experience is going to tell it to try something else, or that it isn't good enough, as opposed to accepting the first result.
You can recreate this by disabling web search and asking a model about the conjecture and then giving it his post. I've tried a few and their initial responses range from "this is a meme I'm not even going to verify it" to vaguely insulting chains of thought, concerns about the need to be careful because you're clearly nuts or stupid, then falling back on remedial explanations. After a few nudges they all eventually work through it, accept it, and apologize.
IMO its reasonable to imagine a situation where someone is having a beer or two watching The Big Game, asking an LLM to do something stupid for fun and landing somewhere like this on the magic jump to conclusions mat.
> While this is an extremely quick verification, the construction presented in this fashion appears like a massive miracle. The polynomial {F} has degree seven, so a priori the Jacobian {\mathrm{det} DF} ought to be a polynomial in three variables of degree as large as {3 \times 6 = 18}, so the fact that all non-constant coefficients of this polynomial vanish looks like a massive cancellation involving {\binom{18+3}{3}-1 = 1329} coefficients, which is much larger than the {\binom{7+3}{3} = 120} degrees of freedom for a generic degree seven polynomial of three variables. So finding such a polynomial looks highly unlikely to be located by brute force.
Sounds like the most interesting part would be learning what approaches the LLM did use to see if that's reusable elsewhere. I'm guessing that's what the rest of the article is about? Because I also couldn't follow the maths any more.
I was reading another source that claimed this example was inspired by an existing (rational polynomial) example from the literature (created in 1999 by a Russian mathematician Vitushkin).
> The seed is almost certainly Vitushkin's old rational "counterexample."
From https://claude.ai/share/22abed98-d9af-43c5-9881-b19e009a07b0
This is not quite lore laundering, but it seems to be close.
I still can't understand all the details, but it's very interesting to read that chat. Anyway, instead of close to lore laundering, for me it's "standing on the shoulder of giants".
Prompt: Claude, prove that P=NP
Claude: I'm sorry, Bob, I'm afraid I can't do that
HN: lol stochastic parrot
I don’t understand math but it was amusing seeing Terrence Tao’s chat with chatGPT. Everything Tao said was constantly followed by praise: “That’s exactly the right way to think about it.”,
“Yes, you are exactly right.”
“You have gotten to the core issue.”
And non stop praise. Seems like sycophancy is still an issue lol.
If there's anyone that deserves praise every time he has something to say about mathematics, it's him.
Tired of this meme, really.
The introduction to this piece was easy to follow, but as soon as he got into recapitulating it with algebra he lost me (because I'm bad at math). But he includes the GPT5 prompts for his conversation, which are easier to follow:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5fdc7a-d6f8-83e8-bbea-8deb42cfed...
Also note the timestamp: he started working on this thread a few hours after the tweet.
I like how he goes one-on-one with it like Gandalf fighting Yoda on fifteen planes at once for 80% of the transcript, and then we read "OK, I've activated Pro."
> Clearly one can get from Theorem 3 to Theorem 2 by composing with the isomorphism {X \cong {\bf C}^3} and using the previously mentioned fact that local injectivity implies non-zero constant Jacobian.
I mean, clearly, right?
You and me both, pal.
> I'm bad at math ... he includes the GPT5 prompts for his conversation, which are easier to follow
You were kidding, right?
After reading a quarter of the article I started wondering, is this what non coders feel when vibe coding software?
Okay. So what does this overturn, intuitively? Can we no longer assume that functions are differentiable at certain points, or something?
I'm not a mathematian but I know enough linear algebra and vector calculus to understand the conjecture. This is my interpretation:
Firstly, the determinant of the Jacobian is measuring if at any point the function is crushing space / flattening out.
If the Jacobian is a nonzero constant everywhere this means that nowhere does the the function flatten out. A small change in X along any line will always produce a non zero change in Y. Not flattening out means that locally you can invert it.
What was conjectured is that this local invertibability property everywhere would mean global invertibility.
Turns out to not be the case.
For a simple case, the falsified conjecture is trivially true in 1D.
Specifically consider f(x) = x^2
This function happens to flatten out right at x=0. At that x coodrinate the function flattens out and folds over on itself. This fold means you can't invert x^2. It's also not locally invertible around x=0.
If a function f(x) has constant derivative evewhere then it would flatten out nowhere and it would be invertible everwhere. It would also be globally invertible.
The Jacobian conjecture was stating that the extension of this property holds in higher dimensions. That if the function had no fold in space then it would be invertible globally.
The counterexample shows that you can create a simple function in 3 variables, where the function demonstratably is invertible evewhere, but is not injective globally (they specifically show 3 points that map to the same output).
What's interesting is this is like if someone showed you a parabola where somehow you got back to the same y coordinate without a kink bending over back to itself.
Thanks, I was curious for the motivation behind the conjecture, but it wasn’t mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
Sounds like 3 more iterations on K3/Fable, and we'll able to ask it to break computational hardness assumptions like DLP?
it doesn't overturn much. For example, here is a post from 2004
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=105
it is about a purported (though incorrect) positive proof of the Jacobian conjecture in 2 dimemnsions. It is true in 1 dimension. The Fable proof is that it is false in >= 3 dimensions. 2 dimensions is still open.
Anyway, in that post it says
> It now seems that a proof has been found by Carolyn Dean of the University of Michigan, for the case of polynomials in two complex variables *(for more variables, many people believe it is not even true)*
so the resolution of this is a "surprise" in that it is a very long open with many failed proof attempts. But the direction it resolved was not surprising.
For the Jacobian determinant to be constant is a massive coincidence, in general it is some complicated and messy polynomial. The conjecture was that this coincidence couldn't happen, except for simple special cases.
So Alpoge and Fable found an example of a function that was believed to be too strange to exist.
Not much.
But it does give credible plausibility to the concept that we might be mistaken about the exact boundaries of hardness for adjacent (but not equivalent) polynomial systems. Most (all?) of which have also stood up to a whole lot of undeniably sharp people poking at them for about as long.
No. This is about polynomials. The assumption that the Jacobian is nowhere zero is what is doing so much of the work. This means the Jacobian must in fact be constant. But obviously there are many mappings whose Jacobians are not constant.
It overturns the Jacobian conjecture (i.e., speculation) for dim >= 3, which we now know was an overgeneralization. Tao characterizes it as "can be viewed as an assertion that local invertibility implies global invertibility". It was already widely suspected to be false. Assuming that it was true was never warranted, so this really doesn't change anything. The significance is that an AI was able to find a relatively simple counterexample. Its "chain of thought" would be very interesting to see.
Finding a different way of thinking about a problem often leads to a breakthrough. This is what an ecosystem in nature shows us, that diversity matters in finding hard solutions. I think the great thing here is we are getting a chance to find whole new ways of thinking about problems that were hard. I suspect many old problems will fall because of it and, hopefully, some really new interesting ones will replace them.
"problems that were hard"
They are still hard problems - As we say in the UK: "one swallow does not a summer make".
As you well know: birds are not renowned for their arithmetic skills, nor eating encourages the weather!
reading through this I eventually realized a situation similar to my experience of it is what my dog sees if I attempt to explain Python programming to him.
The difference is your dog will never understand the Python code but you could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks if you really wanted to. Can we all please stop acting like this Terry guy is so special?
I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or genuinely don't know who he is
I certainly do not think that the average HN reader "could probably understand this post in a matter of days or weeks". I think the level of background information you need is something like an undergraduate degree in mathematics and at many universities that's probably not enough either.
There's a difference between understanding something and being able to do something. For example you can get a broad understanding of what calculus does in a matter of minutes: a derivative is just the rate of change of a curve, and an integral is the total area under a curve - you're practically there! Of course it'd take months of work to understand how to apply it yourself, let alone all the tricks involved, but a basic understanding of what stuff is, is very easy to obtain.
And I think that generalizes to math. Its normal presentation is completely impenetrable due to a large use of symbols and terms with no outside meaning (or, even worse, a meaning that contradicts the colloquial usage). But I think if we somehow resolved that issue, the average person would be fully capable of following along even if they're going to have to take everything at face value as opposed to being able to meaningfully understand the exact methods and tricks being used to get from A to B.
Goats though, they get it. Bang your head against a monitor until things start working.
I'm not dumb. I'm relatively smart. I am, however, smart enough to see that people like Terry or Ramanujan are actually that special.
Some people downvoting you, but I think it is a valuable illustration of IQ gap.
And chances are that humanity at large will be soon trying to follow ai inventions and discoveries not unlike your dog follows your Python code.
I really don’t think IQ has much to do with it. Understanding this stuff is like a skill you practice. Yes, granted, if you had a low IQ your chances of ever understanding it goes down, if you have a high IQ maybe you can gain the prerequisite understanding faster.
A lot of maths is about both being able to wrap your head around hard problems and gaining the prerequisite knowledge to make it easier to do so.
Related:
Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48973869
Human mathematicians are being outcounterexampled
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48983382
Can we audit the CoT and work the AI did to generate such a remarkable cancellation?
I doubt Anthropic will share the details (or at least the full true details). The mystery of the magic makes for much better marketing.
I think a reasonable assumption is that there is an interaction between an LLM, a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system tool, a human prompting with deep math expertise, and lots of compute that explains hitting upon the remarkable cancellation.
I think you can reasonably assume that frontier models are using SymPy or something like it any time interesting math gets into the picture, and the person driving Fable here is an accomplished mathematician, but I don't think we can reasonably assume either extensive prompting or brute-force compute in any sense other than what it normally takes Fable to, say, whip up a calculator app.
The two big discoveries both came from the negligible handful of mathematicians working at OpenAI/Anthropic in spite of many orders of magnitude more mathematicians using them outside of the companies. I don't see any way to explain this without assuming that the limiting factor is the ability to burn a few rainforests worth of tokens in pursuit of something publishable.
I think it would also explain their opacity towards the process. Being able to solve such well known problems in a nice replicable 1-2-3 way would be far more effective marketing than their complete opacity outside of the result, which suggests that they feel transparency is not in their best interest for some reason.
Would you ordinarily be able to "explain this", if a mathematician had come up with this on their own? How would that story go?
Bayesian probability. Were outcomes being driven by 'normal' usage of LLMs then it's extremely improbable that both big discoveries would come from the small number of people working at the companies. That suggests working at the companies is more the decisive factor than the LLMs in and of themselves.
And what do you get from working at the company? Likely a rather massive token/processing budget. The companies opacity towards the path to these discoveries also makes this further probable as 'spend millions of dollars in tokens' is a somewhat less attractive narrative than the implied narrative of 'just use Fable.'
I have no idea what actually happened behind the scenes, but the human prompter, Levent Alpöge, indeed has deep math expertise. Princeton PhD, Harvard postdoc, and some excellent research (prior to this) to his name.
https://alpo.ge/
Not just an assumption, I saw the LLM saying it used sympy.
Yeah more or less. I proved a SOTA result using Gemini 3.1 Pro a year ago and it was a lot of back and forth.
We're definitely still in the computer chess phase.
> a human prompting with deep math expertise
The original tweet implied that the whole thing was done while the author was watching the World Cup final.
I know it’s tempting to hope that a human did the “real” work here, but if some special insight was put into prompting, the author kept it to himself, and there is no reason why they would hide this since it would elevate their own status.
I don't think it is as much about 'real' work or a special insight as it is being willing to push back multiple times, or simply asking in a way that steers it towards actually 'giving enough of a fuck' to even bother. We tend to be ~blind to how differently we would ask about something we know compared to a novice, this is what makes some better teachers than others.
Have encountered a similar flavor in programming, wrote it off until I saw someone point out how garbage in garbage out they tend to be. If you hand any frontier model dogshit and ask it to do something simply, the result is often not great.
But! If you spend 20 minutes having it comb through and clean up with something like jscpd, then tell it to step through with a debugger, gather profiling traces, etc... very likely it will yield meaningful improvements or catch some corner cases. If it doesn't, anyone with experience is going to tell it to try something else, or that it isn't good enough, as opposed to accepting the first result.
You can recreate this by disabling web search and asking a model about the conjecture and then giving it his post. I've tried a few and their initial responses range from "this is a meme I'm not even going to verify it" to vaguely insulting chains of thought, concerns about the need to be careful because you're clearly nuts or stupid, then falling back on remedial explanations. After a few nudges they all eventually work through it, accept it, and apologize.
IMO its reasonable to imagine a situation where someone is having a beer or two watching The Big Game, asking an LLM to do something stupid for fun and landing somewhere like this on the magic jump to conclusions mat.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48986943