Hacker News Reader

Comment by math_dandy | Hacker News Reader

To me, the most interesting feature of the OpenAI solution of the Unit Distance (Erdös) Problem is that the solution - using deep algebraic number theory as a source of extremal combinatorial/geometric constructions - is much more interesting than the problem’s elementary statement might lead one to expect.

Writing off Erdös’s problems as random, useless, or meaningless dismisses his mathematical intuition, second-to-none, and strikes me as somewhat uncharitable.

Finally, I agree that AI threatens mathematical training by rendering an entire class of acolyte-level research problems solvable by prompt. But the Unit Distance Problem is not of this class.

View on HN

> much more interesting than the problem’s elementary statement might lead one to expect

This is reinforced by the immediate (human) use of the idea to resolve in the negative another significant problem, the sum-product conjecture on reals.

Explanation of what was involved: https://www.erdosproblems.com/forum/thread/blog:6

I don't think Erdos problems are useless myself, I put "useless" in quotes to emphasize that they are the sort of research that doesn't have an immediate application, and so their automated resolution should be weighed against the sociological cost.

As opposed to, say, drug discovery.

I am not a mathematician and did not read the unit distance solution too carefully, but my impression was that it used a variation of a known technique to solve the problem. And that makes perfect sense to me, there are a lot of techniques and lot of less relevant problems, I am not surprised that one can solve some of them with known techniques that just nobody has tried [hard enough] before. I am much more sceptical when it come to the important unsolved problems where every known technique has probably been tried several times over. In those instances it will probably take a true leap in understanding to solve them and I am sceptical that large language models are well suited for that because of the way they work.

We're very fortunate to have had some very eminent mathematicians backfill the OpenAI proof with history, context, and a literature review [1]. Ideas behind the proof seem to have been "in the air". Indeed, looked at certain point of view, the OpenAI construction can be viewed as a high-dimensional generalization of a known low-dimensional one. In this vein see the remarks of Gowers, Sawin and Tsimerman in [1]. Are LLMs capable of "true leap[s] in understanding"? I have absolutely no idea. But LLMs keep surprising me.

[1] https://arxiv.org/html/2605.20695v1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com