Hacker News Reader

Comment by tancop | Hacker News Reader

> The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI. CMI may, in its discretion, relax or remove one or more of the conditions listed in Section 6(e) above if it has received advice from experts in the field of the Problem, chosen by CMI, that a published solution is likely to be correct.

Looks like even a blog post is good enough, they just need to do the review by themselves.

View on HN

Interesting. It seems this carve-out was added when they rewrote the rules in 2018. In the original rules [0], it says:

   Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics journal of world-wide repute, and it must also have general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after that publication. Following this two-year waiting period, the [Clay Mathematics Institute] will decide whether a solution merits detailed consideration.

There's no option for CMI discretion. They probably rewrote the rules to avoid another Poincaré conjecture situation, where the paper was only published on arXiv and not in a mathematics journal.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20000622023328/http://www.clayma...

My opinion is that it is pretty clear that they’re not going to do that.

> The rules governing the prizes describe the process for evaluating what has been achieved and for assigning credit. The process is deliberately unhurried, but we will provide updates.

I think “you don’t get anything straight away for rushing your AI into the maths problems, not even credit” aligns pretty fairly with what the fields medalists are concerned with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com