They have improved a bound but I can’t tell that their method will open up a plausible path to a full proof. It feels like we’ve managed to increase the top speed of a car from 200mph to 227mph, but are no closer to understanding how the engine works.
But more importantly, a new idea like this often points the way to variations that may also create improvement. Therefore as other researchers pile on, we may see this bound come down further.
So yes, it is like a wall in a maze was breached, and there is the opportunity to go further. And it is fair to call that a breakthrough. Of course you're still charging into a maze, and further progress is far from guaranteed.
In terms of the result itself, as Tao explains:
> ... making the first substantial improvement to a classical 1940 ...
Meaning, it's been 80 years since any progress has been made on this front (bounds of zeros of the Riemann zeta function).
I would make the argument that it's not so much making a top speed car from 200mph to 227mph but discovering an engine that uses gasoline instead of steam.
Presumably the methods used in the paper might be able to be extended or refined to get better results.
Also, in the last years he was leading a few project to crowsource improvements after breakthroughs in other conjetures. I'm too far from this area to be sure, but if he sees there is a chance to improve this, I expect him to launch a new one.
From the article:
> but they do a number of clever and unexpected maneuvers
If he post something like that about me, I'd frame it an hang it in the wall.
I think it's pretty silly to say that Tao is the best living mathematician, but even if he were I don't think that this would be a useful way to think about things.
I agree. I was going to write "one of the best" or "probably the best" or something like that. It's like discussing if Messi or Maradona were the best football players. [1]. Anyway, all three of them are quite good.
> but even if he were I don't think that this would be a useful way to think about things.
I also agree. It's just and argument by authority. For a decition that would change the lives of millons of persons and has a lot of subtle tradeoff and unknown unknowns, I'd ask for a better justification and evidence. But deciding if this is a breakthrough or not, may only change the lives of a few graduate students and a few grown up mathematicians, so I'm happy to take the word of Tao.
[1] Hi from Argentina!
But I'll humor you. How would you prefer we say things?
- Highest IQ on record.
- One of only 3 people to score over 700 on the Math SAT before he was 8. He had the highest score of the three with 760.
- At ages 10, 11, and 12 he set the record for winning Bronze, Silver, and Gold respectively in the International Math Olympiad. After that he lost interest.
- PHD from Princeton at 21.
- Full professor at UCLA at 24. This is a record.
- He is a respected leader in at least a half-dozen areas of mathematics. He regularly publishes in many more. It is unusual for a mathematician to have significant publications in 2 areas.
- Wikipedia lists 28 major prizes for him. Excepting Australian of the Year in 2022, all are major mathematics prizes. No other mathematician comes close.
- Once you exclude junk journals, Tao publishes papers faster than any other mathematician. And his are all good.
- Tao's papers show up in the popular press more often than the next 3 mathematicians combined.
And so on.
At what point is there a better way to think about this than, "best live mathematician"?
(And yeah, until I began noticing Tao, I would have also thought that a silly way to think...)
Your other points are similar.
At this point Tao only has 3/4 his number of publications, similar numbers of textbooks, a similar number of awards (using https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Serre/ to count awards), and so on. I'd count Tao as having more of what I see as major breakthroughs, but that is subjective. But then again, Tao is half of Serre's age.
Yeah. I still think it is fair to put Tao in the same tier as Euler, Gauss and Hilbert.
To make a claim like "greatest living mathematician" it would be more appropriate to talk about his actual research accomplishments and how they compare to canonical figures like Gromov, Milnor, Serre, Smale, Yau, among many younger counterparts.
But, personally, I think defending any such claim for any particular person is kind of a juvenile exercise. I am a mathematician and among the slight minority of mathematicians I know who would take the question seriously, a minority of them would select Tao. Which of course isn't to say that he isn't universally considered a top mathematician.
It's still important because there hasn't been much new evidence in years whether the conjecture is true or false. Now we have some new evidence that it's true.
Everyone knows what the important idea of a proof is. Publishing the work that grates a new field of mathematics that leads to a proof is not worse than toiling away privately (for longer!).
Gregory Perelman, the only Millennium Prize winner, declined the prize because he refused to accept credit for Richard S Hamilton's foundational work.