https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2025-07-01/a-17-year-old-teen-refutes-a-mathematical-conjecture-proposed-40-years-ago.html

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.06137

As an unaccomplished loser who just enjoys Numberphile videos, how can I achieve shit like this?

>>16718887 (OP)
Disprove deez nuts

>>16718887 (OP)
/sci/ BTFO!

She's not only smarter than all of /sci/, but also cute:
https://imagenes.elpais.com/resizer/v2/5LK4ENJC3ZBI3EFXNAIFAIDHJY.jpg?auth=8911f2a3f3ba941e6ca304ceaac3c5c7cdb155253ee7ed064b6b7e6459525312

>be gifted kid with high IQ
>be interested deeply in abstract concepts and theory
>grind math books from a young age
>take university math classes
>meet the right people to guide you on jour mathematical journey, feeding you material that is very hard and challenges you, but not so hard that it is unapproachable
>keep grinding (save Ramanujan, math is hard work for everyone)
>get introduced to a problem that interests you
>through sheer intellect and/or a bit of luck, be able to solve this problem


So unless you are 8 years old extremely gifted kid who is obsessed about math, it's over.
If you are not gifted but merely want to understand a proof such as this and you are disciplined and intelligent enough, it could be done with self study in 5 or 6 years, maybe longer depending on your motivation/time and shorter if you have a knack for math.

>>16718887 (OP)
here's the counterexample, from her own youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZeH_8sTyKA

>>16718887 (OP)
This is a level "Professor Dave" will never be able to achieve. What a sad existence...

>>16718887 (OP)
I bet I'm ranked higher than she in League of Legends. We all have our strengths.

>>16718901
goddamn you're dumb
she's a chick
you should check her work
dumb bitch probably fucked up somewhere
>No, I didn't make a mistake for attention!
>I would never do that Anon, ever!
mfw

>>16718988
NO FUCKING WAY

It's a tranny

polcelbros... pls come up with an excuse for why were better than her

>>16718887 (OP)
>>16718890
>>16718917
>>16719049
>>16719069
/sci/ cope and seethe over Ashkenazi iq, episode #10638

>>16719003
Mogged by a high school chick kek

>>16719119
Is "she" confirmed Hebrew?

>>16719069
Real shit, first thought that came to my mind is "ok is she a tranny" because trannies are way more into math than regular women

>>16719069
>>16719235
>first thought that came to my mind is "ok is she a tranny"
you seem to have an obsession with trannies... have you guys have accepted your fate? did you go through surgery already?

she used ai to solve it

>>16719137
>>16719003
Mindbroken incels

>>16719049
>>16718901
>she
do youy niggers not see his adam's apple? fucking lmao

>>16719476
It's not an obsession, it's a skill.
In this day and age, you go to a bar and chat with a girl, take her home, and when she gets naked, you see she has a dick.
Better to identify someone's gender right at the first spot,...rather than going through all the layers.
>inb4 you seem to have much experience with dating trannies.
No i don't, but i've read stories on how people got bamboozled by cute looking girls, only to discover the horrible truth some hours later.

Math teacher from r/WitchesVsPatriarchy talking about how big of a deal this is

>>16719499
Why, in this society, is it encouraged to be a witch but it's frowned upon to be a wizard?

>>16719513
d&c, almost every micro conflict is, you see the angry woman, I see the strings that moves it, and the mover

>>16719476
I mean, just trying to inform anons before they start simping for "her".

>>16719119
wdym cope? I made this reply btw
>>16718917

I'm not saying Hannah Cairo got to her result purely off of IQ or something she had no influence over. She got there through hard work.
Like I explicitly say in my post, mathematics is hard work for everyone. You can be as gifted as you want, without hard work you will most likely already hit a wall in undergrad math.

There is no denying she is smart though, this is not cope, as I said, she got where she is through hard work. Her being smart is simply a prerequisite to being able to get where she is through grinding.

>>16719526
You could have just been honest by saying that you are tranny obsessed and bitter and that that is why you made the comment you did.
You're not informing, you're speculating about something that is not relevant and weird to bring up.
Some kid made an extraordinary discovery at a young age and you start talking about trannies.

>>16718901
>>16718887 (OP)
That's.. a man?

>>16719535
What has happened to this place? You seriously can't see it's a man? It took me about 10 seconds. I guess if you want to be tranny chasers go ahead.

>Some kid made an extraordinary discovery at a young age and you start talking about trannies.
Of which absolutely none of the other anons on here are talking about either.

Can't wait for AI to replace mathematicians. I think a ton of them will literally kill themselves.

Extremely annoying humans

>>16719227
>Cairo
people with surnames that indicate cities generally are

>>16719558
>What has happened to this place? You seriously can't see it's a man?
I don't care what the person looks like. Whether the person is a man or transgender or a woman or whatever doesn't interest me in the slightest. The person is in the news because they disproved a mathematical conjecture at a young age.

>I guess if you want to be tranny chasers go ahead.
Not caring about someone's identity when it is irrelevant to the achievement makes someone a "tranny chaser"? Not every person you see in a photo needs to be a source of dopamine release and sexual gratification. Not to mention the kid is 17...

>Of which absolutely none of the other anons on here are talking about either.
If it makes you feel better, my statements can be adressed to them equally well.

>>16719562
have you tried understanding how LLMs work? of course you didn't, because if you did, you'd know """AI""" can't even sum 2 numbers, retard.

>>16719558
>What has happened to this place? You seriously can't see it's a man? It took me about 10 seconds
no one gives a shit. just admit you are jealous of a teenager and obsessed with trannies.

>>16719586
Counter example to prove you wrong.

>>16719589
it's just repeating what's in its DB, or maybe using a "plugin" (aka, an external resource) for that.

also
>not using a local LLM
you don't beling here, brainlet

>>16719681
You're just repeating what's in your DB (brain). When the numbers get too big for your little brain, even you have to resort to external tools like pen and paper or a calculator.

>>16718887 (OP)
>how can I achieve shit like this?
Have parents who are experts that hold your hand from a young age.
Work on a problem/conjecture almost nobody in math has heard of.

>>16719697
That reminds me of a boy (who was also 17) that solved some unsolved problem 1 year ago.
turned out his parents were both professors in mathematics,...even his sister were a math PhD.

>>16719701
You mean daniel larsen? Yeah, his uncle is a fields medalist

>>16718887 (OP)
>>16718901
I'm generally not the "everything is a tranny" type, but this is very clearly a male.

>>16719697
>>16719701
these girls had none of that family nepo shit and still accomplished more than anyone on this board

>>16719582
People with your opinion are some of the worst members of society

>>16719722
Lmao. In what society? The society of bitter and tranny obsessed NEETs who get triggered by the news of a 17 year old kid disproving a math conjecture?

But I do appreciate your reply, it makes clear that you have run out of things to say that relate to the discussion.

>>16719586
>AI can't sum two numbers together
Idiot. Addition is one thing neural nets are capable of. What AI isn't capable of (without external help) is multiplication.
>t. $400k AI engineer

>>16719779
multiplication is just a bunch of addition. they pay you $400k and you can't patch this? man, i should take your job. i'd fix that for half the salary

>>16719782
>multiplication is just a bunch of addition
>A bunch
The arbitrary recursion is why neural nets can't do it. The fact you think it's so easy is why you don't make my income.

>>16719784
>computers can't handle recursion
LMFAAO

>>16719792
>Computers = AI
Retard

>>16719796
are you claiming you've ran AI on something that isn't a computer?

Can anyone tell me how legit this is, or is it another nothing burger?

>>16719802
>it’s another thread about a young girl who did a math and it’s like soooooo amazing
What do you think?

>>16719800
No. I'm claiming that you're a retard that doesn't understand AI and that you're talking out your ass.

>>16719806
i accept your concession. PROTIP: ai doesn't work without multiplication.

>>16719808
Link a notebook where you successfully train a neural net on the function y=xz or fuck off.

>>16719811
It's amazing to me that you don't understand the mathematics behind AI while being this smug and allegedly earning $400k.

>>16719686
>>16719779
https://old.reddit.com/r/GeminiAI/comments/1l29m4t/why_is_it_so_hard_for_gemini_to_do_simple_math/

>>16719813
>Implying
I know every layer of a neural net is an activation function on a linear combination. That doesn't mean that the retard known as (((you))) is capable of fitting a model where the target is simply the product of its two features. But feel free to prove me wrong.

>>16719816
You're not understanding. If genAI is incapable of doing multiplication, the reason is that it cannot do addition.

Did she have adult help or did she do it all on her own? This is important.

>>16719499
This is really cringe. Are women really like this?

Why is no one bothering to check if she’s legit? Is this board just complaining?

>>16719818
>Implying you have any idea what these billion dollar companies' models are "capable of" or how they work
>Implying we've even defined what "capable of" means
None of that matters. I'm calling (((you))) out specifically, with a clearly defined task, to prove that you even know what you're talking about. If you can't prove that you're capable of it, there's no point in discussing further. Instead of a notebook, I'll accept a quick description of what you would do

I haven’t even heard of Mizohata-Takeuchi until today.

Is this actually a big deal?

>>16719831
keking my ass off at how easy it is to crack the ego of a man who allegedly earns $400k. you consider me a retard, yet are wasting how much time seething and getting into a pissing contest with this person you see as a retard and demanding he publish a notebook for you. when, in actuality, the claim being made is that you don't understand what you're doing (genAI cannot do addition, contradicting what you said earlier). it's that simple. you wouldn't be the first CS/AI engineer/software dev pseud who has a chip on his shoulder that i've mindbroken by exposing his ignorance on simple, fundamental things he should be an expert on.

We can’t trust a woman’s math. Count it again.

>>16719814
lmao did you just link a reddit post here?

>>16719836
I'm not the original anon he replied to. I'm just giving the guy a round 1 interview question to make sure I'm not dealing with a complete ignoramus. If he wants to make a claim about some of the most advanced, state of the art models, with practically zero evidence (seriously, a reddit post), he should at least prove that he has some academic knowledge in the field.

>>16719845
>>>/g/
This is the science & math board. What you are doing and requesting is neither science related nor math related.

So no one can refute her refutation?

Nice to see feminists claiming this as a win for the matriarchy. God they’re so pathetic.

>>16719848
>Run an experiment to prove your theory about neural nets
>Neither science nor math
What I'm doing is more science related than oggling a 17 year old, like the rest of the thread.

Anyone have a link to her supposed first paper on number theory? I have my doubt on her counter-example. It uses asymptotic methods rather loosely.

>>16719835
It’s not even in the archives. I can barely find any mention of it anywhere before this point.

>>16718887 (OP)


Fuck, this conjecture look so advanced hard to imagine a 17 year can even understand it let alone solve it

>>16719828
You expect mathematicians doing harmonic analysis to be lurking on /sci? The result is above the level of the board.
So the thread reduces to discussion about her adam's apple or if she's received secret help from adults.
And if she did do it herself, she must have made errors. And if she hasn't made errors, the result is insignificant anyway.

Anything to cope with the inevitable reality that some people, and yes even some girls, just mog you intellectually.

>>16719872
Nets Katz and Terrence Tao both believe it is correct.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.06137

>>16719878
Everywhere in the archives I look there is no mention of Mizohata. It’s like this was just made up.

>>16719875
Don't lie. https://arxiv.org/search/?query=mizohata-takeuchi&searchtype=all&source=header
I'm not in harmonic analysis so I cannot attest to the importance of the conjecture either, but there is no need to lie.

>>16719882
I’m serious. I’m not seeing it mentioned anywhere here on the /sci/ archives as well as the math subreddit. It just fucking appeared.

>>16719882
>earliest it goes it 2020

>>16719880
See post
>>16719882

Your narrative that this was made up is easily demonstrated false. I suggest you move on to a different narrative that downplays the achievement. There are multiple options already in this thread you can choose.

>>16719877
>So the thread reduces to discussion about her adam's apple or if she's received secret help from adults.
I don’t care about whether she’s a girl or not. She very likely had help from adults, who may have even gave her credit just to make her feel happy, I don’t know. It’s very unlikely she did it all on her own.
>And if she did do it herself, she must have made errors
Okay.
>And if she hasn't made errors, the result is insignificant anyway.
Why? Why is it insignificant? They’re saying her refutation is going to be a big game changer for the field.
>Anything to cope with the inevitable reality that some people, and yes even some girls, just mog you intellectually.
Again, what? The majority of godlike tier mathematicians are male, not female, so more female mathematicians are free to show themselves.

>>16719885
I’m not saying it’s made up, I’m saying there’s barely any mention of it anywhere.

You’re the one calling it insignificant!

>>16719886
anon. anyone who solves this problem becomes famous. clearly whatever insight was necessary to crack the puzzle was hers, and hers alone (hence why she's single author). did she get help in formalizing the proof, cleaning up her logic, and publishing the result? almost surely. that's called being a mentor. anyone who's published knows that this work is being published single author by her because, even though she is receiving mentoring, the strides in the work are hers and hers alone. you're just having a mental breakdown that a 17 year old girl is smarter than you

What’s annoying isn’t her achievement - it’s truly cool what she did - but it’s posts like >>16719499 (what was screencapped not the anon) that are just so goddman awful, and only serves to downplay her achievement for the sake of politics.

I’m serious. Go to the WitchesVsPatriarchy subreddit right now. It’s disgusting. They don’t care about the math, the achievement, they only care that a girl did it.

>>16719890
You’re the one calling it insignificant and making it look like she did nothing. Who’s the real butthurt one here? That would be you.

>>16719888

It seems to be a pretty niche problem Harmonic Analysis problem that only people who deeply specializes in Harmonic Analysis would know about it

>>16719890
>anon. anyone who solves this problem becomes famous.
>famous
Barely anyone knows about it, and by her own words “nobody really cared for it”. She quite literally said she focused on something no one cared for.

>>16719890
>the strides in the work are hers and hers alone
Unless you have 24/7 surveillance to prove this claim, I’m going to doubt it. Remember when that one girl discovered the first picture of a black hole? In reality the men let her get the achievement for it.

>>16719891
Someone needs to tell them that what she did was essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things, and that all of the past greats were men, not women.

>>16719896
of course i mean famous within the math community. i thought i was conversing with fellow academics - my mistake.
>>16719893
how is me saying she'll become famous and that the work is hers and hers alone calling it insignificant and saying she did nothing? you must have responded to the wrong post.
>>16719898
that was science, and the publication had numerous authors. it was the press that minimized the work from others. this is obviously the work of a single author, as you can verify by seeing it's a single-author paper.
>>16719888
>>16719880
if only Cairo cited her work - which she did - which you can so easily find
[Miz85]
[Tak74]
[Tak80]

>>16719902
Citations aren’t evidence of anything. It’s just a stamp.

>>16719906
you can literally track down the sources of those citations. she's even generous even to tell you the specific page numbers. my god you're retarded.

>>16719907
That’s not the kind of citation I’m talking about. “Yes it was me it was ALL me” isn’t a proper citation.

>>16719902
>this is obviously the work of a single author
With the adults looking over her shoulder yes

>>16719890
>you're just having a mental breakdown that a 17 year old girl is smarter than you
There are Chinese mathematicians in China who have shrines to Mao in their bathrooms.

>>16719902
No, seriously, how can one prove that she did it all on her own?

>>16719886
>She very likely had help from adults, who may have even gave her credit just to make her feel happy, I don’t know. It’s very unlikely she did it all on her own
That was poor phrasing on my part. By secret help I meant that some people are downplaying this kid by insinuating that the important work must have been done by adults and not herself. Is that possible? Sure, but I think it's unnecessary to make that the default assumption.

Those next two things you quote from me are me explaining how people are coping. Like I said, I'm not in harmonic analysis so I cannot judge the significance of the result.

>Again, what? The majority of godlike tier mathematicians are male, not female, so more female mathematicians are free to show themselves.
What's not clear about what I said? Some people in this thread are needlessly bitter in a way that I speculate comes from them being triggered by being mogged intellectually. I don't see how it is relevant that the majority of godlike tier mathematicians are male.

man. i spent over a decade striking femicunts with the debunker3000. today, i would like to publicly apologize to all the feminists i lampooned; i was mistaken. toxic masculinity is alive and thriving, as this thread demonstrates. a bunch of men simply cannot accept a young woman doing something noteworthy without the help of a man. i sincerely apologize, feminists - i will take you more seriously in the future.

>>16719917
You can't. But by that argument, you cannot believe any single author math paper was truly the work of that person alone. Unless there exists some 24/7 camera surveillance database of mathematicians' their whole lives that I'm unaware of.

We're just going to have to take her and her advisor's word for it. What's the worst that could happen? Oh no, a counter-example to a conjecture that comes up in the study of well-posedness of dispersive PDEs was attributed incorrectly, the horror.

If she is truly a fraud, she will quickly be discovered in her PhD. In math, you cannot coast on politics and coauthors. You have to do the work and convince other people of the correctness and importance of your work. That is a great filter.

>>16719930

>If she is truly a fraud, she will quickly be discovered in her PhD. In math, you cannot coast on politics and coauthors. You have to do the work and convince other people of the correctness and importance of your work. That is a great filter.

>>16719930
Nowhere did I say she is a fraud. I’m saying it’s suspect, or the totality of her involvement is suspect. It might be a bit TOO good to be true.

It’s not my fault, either. This is just a consequence of rampant feminism trying to make women look better than they are.

I’d like there to be more women of note in math and science, but they’ve put out a very bad precedent. Same with the simps who reinforce this disingenuousness.

>>16719921
>Some people in this thread are needlessly bitter in a way that I speculate comes from them being triggered by being mogged intellectually.
This isn’t really an argument or an issue when there are plenty of smart people who are also retards. Mathematicians are frequently socially inept.

>>16719922
I see you can’t separate healthy skepticism from butthurt man babies. Being skeptical of a women because of politics doesn’t mean you don’t think the possibility is there.

>>16719953
>Being skeptical of a women because of politics
can't make this shit up

>>16719955
Have you seen the state of the science today?

>>16719933
I didn't know that person, but I googled. Seems like she published a result with a Fields medalist winner so I don't see how she is a mathematical fraud.
She is vocal about her political stances, yes, but she is still doing the math.

Your attempt to refute my quote has failed.

This entire thread is bait.

>>16719958
Why do you keep jumping to “you’re claiming she’s a fraud!” when we’re really just curious about the lead up to her refutation? Figuring out the lead up is sort of what science is… and this extends to methodology…

It sounds like you WANT her to be sole contributor. I don’t know. I’m just a bit doubtful is all. If she truly did it on her own, then more power to her.

>>16719949
>Nowhere did I say she is a fraud. I’m saying it’s suspect, or the totality of her involvement is suspect. It might be a bit TOO good to be true.
It might be, but what is the point of speculating?

>It’s not my fault, either. This is just a consequence of rampant feminism trying to make women look better than they are.
Even if that is the case, that doesn't imply that that is what's happening here. You're just making assumptions that suit your narrative.

>I’d like there to be more women of note in math and science, but they’ve put out a very bad precedent. Same with the simps who reinforce this disingenuousness.
If you truly would like more women in math and science, then you shouldn't make sweeping assumptions that downplay the achievement of some girl.

>>16719970
>It might be, but what is the point of speculating?
Because noticing trends is a thing. Being skeptical is an important part of scientific dissemination.
>Even if that is the case, that doesn't imply that that is what's happening here. You're just making assumptions that suit your narrative.
What? It may or may not be the case. Am I making assumptions to suit my narrative? If my narrative is a health dose or caution, then sure, that’s my narrative.
>If you truly would like more women in math and science, then you shouldn't make sweeping assumptions that downplay the achievement of some girl.
Why? The alternative is far worse.

>>16719970
>stop questioning things
No?
If she truly did the work, then we will get to the bottom of it. You not wanting us to get to the bottom of it is a bit weird… Do you not want her to be validated?

Yes. Champion the prodigy. Champion her for being a woman, not for solving a math problem. Women are truly awful. They always make it about them. I ask myself sometimes if they even care. The girl clearly cared. But imagine if a boy did it — the feminists wouldn’t have batted an eye.

Women barely do anything in history so it really pisses me off when women claim it as a win for women rather than learning.

It shouldn’t matter what sex/gender does a thing, but for some reason feminists always turn it into a competition — which they will fucking lose every single time.

>>16719840
yes, because that's the lattest episode of "LLM can't sum" I found on Google that serves as a counterexample
you do know this is the Science & Math board, right? this is THE place where one would expect a discussion based on logic and facts.

Leonard Euler also taught women math, but whenever I mention this to feminists they always retort with “yeah well why do you think that is? he wanted to ogle them that’s why!”, and then I remind them that “…but he was blind…”.

Women winning something? Men will find an ulterior motive for why. Men being nice to women? Women will find an ulterior motive for why.

Both sex/genders are pathetic.

she will be the one to solve Reimann

>>16719983
Again,
>>16719811

>>16719877
>>16719921
>mogged intellectually
Why do you project your inferiority complex to other anons here?!

>>16719986
Those feminists are also retarded since he taught them through letters, not in person.

>>16719967
>when we’re really just curious about the lead up to her refutation?
That is disingenuous or you haven't even tried to read the paper and news article. The lead up is easily found by reading the paper and the citations. Or watch this https://media.ed.ac.uk/media/The+Mizohata--Takeuchi+conjectureA+an+overview+-+Tony+Carbery/1_wo4zl44n

>It sounds like you WANT her to be sole contributor. I don’t know. I’m just a bit doubtful is all.
I don't care much either way if she was the sole contributor or not. I think it's reasonable to have doubts about many things. I mind that some people by default assume or definitively state that she didn't contribute much to her own work or that other adults actually did the work. We both know the skepticism in the thread would not be the same if some 17 year old Asian boy came up with the counter example.

>>16719818
>>16719836
anon, you are being trolled by some clueless retard

>>16719990
>>16719811
>you need to do $THING to understand how $THING works
/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16719990
Jesus dude, will you just let him participate?

>>16719994
By lead up we’re talking about people.

>>16719994
>We both know the skepticism in the thread would not be the same if some 17 year old Asian boy came up with the counter example.
Please refer to >>16719978

Had a boy did it, feminists wouldn’t have batted an eye.

It shouldn’t matter who does the work. It apparently does, though.

Who is arguably the greatest female mathematician in history anyway? Is there one? I know Euler is the single greatest period. But surely there are crazy wiry haired number obsessed women out there? No?

>>16719995
It's like some retard is telling me some schizo mysticism about Godels incompleteness theorem 2, and I'm simply asking him to integrate sin(x) to prove he's not full of shit. So I'm not completely out of bounds.

I’m only annoyed by the female reaction

“yass gurl slaaayy you draw those pretty flowers gurl they make your papers look so gurrrly”, what the fuck.

>>16720000
Nice digits.
Emmy Noether's contribution in mathematics was more than any other female, i guess.

>>16719994
You really think there aren’t anti-Asians, or anti-teens? God damn anon. Bias is everywhere. It exists in endless forms!

>>16720000
Keziah Mason opened a portal to hell.

>>16720000
>Quads
Some would say Noether. I had the hots for Olga Holtz tho.

>>16719998
>Had a boy did it, feminists wouldn’t have batted an eye.
Ok, and? Why are you bringing feminists in to the argument? I don't in general care what feminists have to say about harmonic analysis conjectures.

>It shouldn’t matter who does the work.
100%, I'm glad we agree.

>It apparently does, though.
It shouldn't, as we both agree, but it does to some people in this thread because they are more skeptical than they would be if it wasn't a girl giving the counter example. And it does because some feminists care about the result because a girl did it. But again, who cares about the feminists in this matter?

>>16720002
if you think training a LLM means anything, I have bad news for you: there are tons of kids and indians out there training and "fine-tuning" LLMs by following tutorials from youtube as if they were blackboxes

Listen. I’m not skeptical because it’s a girl, I’m skeptical because she’s seventeen.

>>16720013
>Why are you bringing feminists in to the argument?
Because they’re the only reason why I’m annoyed. Shit like >>16719499 really. If you have to say shit like “And I absolutely love that she’s doing it with this feminine flair.”, you probably weren’t really a fan of the maths to begin with. It’s just a sport to these people.

>>16720014
All the more reason that you should be capable of solving the week 3 discussion post from my intro to deep learning class. But the fact that you immediately jumped to "fine tuning LLMS" proves you know nothing.

I gotta be honest: I hadn't noticed at first, but the high res pic indeed seems to show she has an adams apple kek

>>16720016
Imagine if someone said “and I love how masculine the paper was” lol

>>16720017
ok then. since you are the expert, here's an exercise: prove to me that LLMs CAN sum without ever making mistakes because "that's how they work".

>men do 999.999 of everything
>a woman does 000.001 of something
>men cry out in rage

>>16720022
>I MUST COMPETE
>t.every STEM student ever

>>16720022
Again. I don’t care that she did it. I care about the insufferable feminist reaction. It makes it look so petty. Who the fuck has a subreddit titled WitchesVsPatriarchy?

>>16720021
I asked first, but sure. Simply make sure to tokenize numbers properly. Since LLMs are built on Neural Nets, a single layer should do.

>>16720016
It even got like 6k more upvotes than the actual math subreddit kek
Women are so gross

> “This is proof that women are smarter and better at math than men”

Don’t you just love how humble they are

>>16720028
They say this shit, when all the important mathematics in the past were conducted by men, not women.

Any amount of female accomplishment at any point in history, even today, weighs a fucking feather compared to the mountain that is male accomplishment.

But, tell any woman that infrastructure is not going to survive without men, and she sees it as a challenge, as though it were a refutable point.

>>16720027
I’m pretty sure there are far fewer math autists than cringe women.

>>16720015
That's fair. But consider the fact that she started her mathematical journey and was studying abstract algebra before 13. If you translate that to a non-accelerated student, it is not unheard of for a clever 4th or 5th year student to produce a good result.

>>16720015
Aren’t most mathematical breakthroughs done in a person’s earlier years?

>>16720039

I don't know, this seems like a graduate level and very niche problem that require deep specialization in harmonic analysis and PDE to understand. An average math major will not even know about this problem

>>16720054
All math is like this. It’s so niche and abstract you question if it’s even important or worthwhile in the long run.

>>16720000
How does Euler compare to Archimedes?

>>16720054
If you are smart and are interested enough to spend all your freetime studying something you can play with academic problems at any age. I think the guy who invented CRT screens thought of it when he was like 15 or something and bored.

>>16720022
Underrated:

>>16720054
But why would I believe an AI?
Why would I even read what it says?

>>16719896

>Barely anyone knows about it, and by her own words “nobody really cared for it”. She quite literally said she focused on something no one cared for.

That's a good idea. Some problems in math remain unsolved for decades not because it's extremely hard, but simply because nobody even knows it exists.

this thread reads like 1 schizo or marketing jeet maknig up half the replies to bait people

>>16718887 (OP)
Cute and autistic :3

>>16720025
Who the fuck has a board called "politically incorrect"?

Males really are the best at math huh? Just another male being excellent.

>>16720025
>Who the fuck has a subreddit titled WitchesVsPatriarchy?
Malevolent mutant freaks with persecution complexes, I'd wager.

>>16718917
>>16719527
This is such a blackpill for me.
All the low-hanging fruit in math and science are gone.
People are now solving extremely esoteric stuff noone has heard of.

>>16718901
On a serious note is this a tranny?

>>16718887 (OP)
Its either a tranny or its wrong and some simp said its right to get to see it smile or some gay shit.

>>16720386
The general trend is correct, but the image is overestimating the feasibility in early/mid 20th century of just picking up a book and "quickly" solving an open problem.
Simultaneously, it is underestimating the current feasibility. It differs heavily between areas.
For example, the image applies to something like arithmetic geometry where you need years of study to even understand some definitions and the questions that are being asked.
But there are fields where the frontier is not so far away, fields like graph theory, combinatorics or some areas of PDEs where you can specialize in one (type of) equation in which you can get pretty deep already as a grad student.

>>16720428
>>16720426
y

>>16720426
>>16720428
It's just my observation, but all the young female mathematicians look masculine and all the young male mathematicians look feminine.

seems to me, math is kinda like steroid: turned women into men and turns men into women.

>>16720442
i have never met a mathematician who was centered

>>16719890
>clearly whatever insight was necessary to crack the puzzle was hers, and hers alone
I would believe that if the person in question was some Russian or Chinese shut-in whose last name isn't the capital of Egypt. But with her being 17 and now entering a PhD program, this definitely suggests parents having aggressively pushed for such outcomes. This is furthermore suggested by her attire, the clothes that fit a 9-year-old but not a teenager who, at that age, should already have gone through the process of dissociating from her parents.

kek

And just like that the thread dies?

>>16721445
everyone is jealous of her, anon

>>16719955
wtaf is that file name

>>16718887 (OP)
She cute.

>>16720054
lets see what her mentor is working on

>>16720054
>posting chatgpt output

>>16721451
Sure anon

>>16722388
checked anon

>>16718887 (OP)
that's a man

>>16718917
>So unless you are 8 years old extremely gifted kid who is obsessed about math, it's over.
i was and i didnt pay attention in math class because it was so stupidly easy, i easily understood division and multiplication and they expected me to sit there answering questions like "whats 7+5" for hours so i wasnt paying attention and they drugged the hell out of me with amphetamines for the next 5 years
nearly my entire life has been miserable since that and the only joy i have is in trying to feel like i did before, but its like i cant be a functional adult while trying to reach those same 7 year old neural pathways so i literally cannot be happy unless my state of mind is extremely immature, not able to be focused and determined like you need to have to have a functional life as an adult, maybe this was worsened by being on amphetamines for 5 years and that helping me concentrate and then not having that. my granddad was an astrophycisist at nasa at my age, and im unemployed at 32 and unable to find a job

>>16718887 (OP)

Here's her video explain her proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZeH_8sTyKA

So is she legit or not

>>16723082
A 17 year old publishing and citing papers (in journals behind paywalls btw) on a niche topic that requires graduate level knowledge of a specialized field all on her own is about as organic as a chicken mcnugget. No matter how le smart you are, there needs to be a lot of nurture for that nature for that to happen. Your average parent would simply not let their child have the resources for that because they’d think she’s horsing around and just a know it all. Her parents are 100% Jews with math PhDs who tigered her through it her whole life.

>>16718887 (OP)
Would learning math from textbooks and using AI as a tutor get me to this level?
>t. physicist who took graduate analysis and really liked it but didn't stick with it

>>16718887 (OP)
>this could have been you if you read the books in the sticky, anon

>>16723095
That's a good hypothetical anon, but just because you were tiger parented doesn't mean you have to project it onto every successful person in stem you see.

>>16718901
>She

>>16723128
Now try having actual arguments.

>>16723133
>projection
>straw man
Yes, it's perhaps that her parents pushed her, or perhaps more likely she is simply intelligent and loves math, hence why she's a 17 year old in Berkeley.

>>16723144
Do you know what any of these mean? Now maybe try addressing anything I said originally instead of this shitty b8.

Normal family with a high IQ child
>mommy, daddy, I heckin’ love math and I need you to buy me these books that cost 150$ each and these expensive monthly subscriptions to academic journals
>uhh sweatie, don’t you think it’s too much? What do you need this for?
>I want to do research and publish papers!
>I’m not sure what publishing a paper means and last time I did math was in high school. I cannot help you, sorry. And that’s too expensive for a hobby. You should go play with your friends instead. You’ll get to do these things in college when you grow up.
Jewish parents with math PhDs
>Rachel come ovah ere. You did read da book uncle Abby gave you right?
>Yes, dad.
>Now you know how important it is for me and your mom that you grow up smart, right? You’re not those goyim. Now before you go to bed, you should read these papers I got for you with my university subscription. Uncle Abby is coming ova on Thursday to help you out with that paper. You’ll get your PhD in no time. Uncle Abby knows a professor at Berkeley. He was at your Bat Mitzvah, rememba?

>>16723156
You don't need this subtle touch of antisemitism here, there are also dynasties of perfectly goy academics. If anything, it's cultural capital that's at stake.

>>16723159
Antisemitism? I never said anything negative about Jews. It’s dey cultah.

>>16723159
You made a mistake. You didn't read the website address at the top of your browser. On this site we are bitter and jealous of people in life that achieve things, remember that.

>>16718887 (OP)
Not her exactly (she started earlier and had support) but I've seen a few cases where kids 16-18 find out math isn't school slop and then get really advanced (like colloquium talks as a second or third year undergrad) really quickly. we'd be so much more successful if we had a rigorous proof-based analysis class in high school.

>>16723170
>bitter and jealous
It's also apparently full of naive retards who think that anyone pointing out the obvious involvement of her parents is salty or something. Because smarts buy kids access to graduate textbooks and journal articles, obviously.

>>16722465
Lmao, i used to emphasize with ADHD diagnosees until I read this post. It sounds like a skill issue.

>once again reminded that mathematics papers aren't written to be read by anyone sane
Elitist retards.

>>16718887 (OP)
superpermutations anon gets her pusy
....soon

>>16723156

>Uncle Abby knows a professor at Berkeley.

LOL, internet search does show her mentor is Ruixiang Zhang at Univeristy of California Berkely

This seems to be a completely different person LOL

https://berkeleybeacon.com/junior-waited-two-years-to-be-on-wheel-of-fortune-her-episode-airs-tuesday-night/

>>16718887 (OP)
BITCH!

>>16723272
XD

>>16718887 (OP)
>>16718901
Why is she so ugly? Is she Jewish?

>>16723204
>I can't understand it so it is written by elitist retards
Yes, you and your knowledge level alone determines what kind of writing is for sane people.
You know there are levels to this right? Someone who dropped out of high school might think that the usage of variables and not just numbers in math is elitist nonsense.

>>16723838
Women in mathematics are not typically known for being attractive.

>>16719876
this is some extreme autistic shit.
i bet the only reason one could disprove it is that no sane person would care enough to find out what it means

>>16723838

she cute

>>16718887 (OP)
>>16723947
Would

>>16724193
she is calculating all of the ways she can make u coom

>>16718887 (OP)
at a young age someone told this chick 'you aint pretty enough to be dumb' and changed her life.

>she is obviously a he
>obviously it’s a set up
>no way a woman did it
>teenagers fucking suck
This board is hilarious

Tell me about her parents

>>16719483
/sci/ is an autism board, which means it’s mostly trannies. You didn’t get the memo?

>>16718988
>her

>>16724200
Most mathematicians are actually pretty bad at calculations or arithmetics. Math at this level is more like art.

>>16718901

>>16718988
Damn, I was trapped.

I normally don't. I think.

>no one can refute
Bros…

A would would never. Could never.

>>16720442
you don't go into pure math if you're attractive to the opposite sex(or even to the same sex)

>>16719004
Would you bet good money on that?

>>16723947
zero tits, but narrow shoulders and no obvious cock and balls print either. do we have other angles of this specimen?

if you want to really feel depressed just wait until you find out how much sex she is already having. Probably making love right now

>>16719681
Isn't that what you do? Your brain is a "database". And your understanding of numbers came from a given "plug-in". Truthfully there is little separating man from machine and there never truly was. What was different was imposed by the one who creates.

>>16723156
happened to me. teacher made me sit outside the classroom when the other kids were doing times tables, so i found a calculus textbook and was doing online calc mock exams in the fourth grade.
but the issue was even THOUGH i went to a private school in a country with a purportedly better education system than the US, none of the teachers i had could help me if i ever ran into a comprehension issue and neither of my parents were particularly interested in/capable of helping me out. even my one (8 years older) brother essentially told my family that i made him insecure, so i kind of gave up and sat on 100-level understanding until i got to high school and had a mentor who could help me out.
the one time anyone actually saw me was my friend's dad (silicon valley VC) who bought me some gifts -- including an arduino kit, a few ECE books, dayan and abbott's theoretical neuroscience, and sporns' networks of the brain, mostly off apparent recommendations from his coworker who very strongly believed in anything NN -- meanwhile i get to college and profs are fawning over these kids who had parents and communities who were able to help them every step of the way, and while i feel happy for them and keep moving forward, i do sit and wonder (a) what i could have achieved if i had the optimal setup and (b) just how many kids out there get cucked by education system memes.
>>16718887 (OP)
cool paper. makes me want to learn more and understand it.

>>16727589
a woman* would never, could never

>>16718887 (OP)
Cute!

translation: grok 4 can now solve conjectures under the guidance of autistic dropouts with Diogenes syndrome

>>16729874

>grok4
>not a total failure

>>16719899
>>16719891
>>16719499
>woman
that's a man retard

>>16730148
Do you have proof that it’s not a man? I mean do you have proof that it’s not a woman?

>>16730162
big head, big ears, broad shoulder, big hands, man hands, small waste, prominent Adams apple, receding hairline with MPB (growing out bangs to hide it), fat distributed as in chart.

I don't believe gender of the researcher should be mentioned at all here. I've heard all the arguments, but it simply isn't relevant.

>this entire thread
Bahahaha