How do you see yourself in 5 years? Me:

The war against Iran was never about the Strait of Hormuz, although the flow of oil is a truly great accomplishment.  The economic stranglehold on the regime has been enormously successful as well.  The nuclear sites have been crippled if not destroyed, and the enriched/weaponized uranium has been buried deep underground from the bombing campaigns. But the only way to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon, devastating ballistic missiles by the thousands, funding and spreading terrorism, is to destroy the regime. There are no good offramps.  I will continue to call for the arming of the Iranian resistance, provide it with training, tech support, and air cover it needs.  We've done this before in other countries.  And because of all that has been done to Iran to this point, especially the economic destruction of the economy, the moment is now -- or at least soon.

Calculus is bourgeois Linear algebra is proletarian

هیچوقتِ هیچوقت اون پدر مادرایی که دونه به دونه زیپ کیسه‌ها رو باز میکردن که جسد بچه‌شون رو پیدا کنن رو یادتون نره

interesting reversal happening where typos are now a sign of effort

On the morning of Monday, 19 September 1994, Andrew Wiles had the insight that completed his proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. He had announced a proof in 1993, but a gap was found in a key part that used the Kolyvagin–Flach method. After nearly a year of work with Richard Taylor trying to repair it, Wiles realized that the reason that approach failed was exactly what allowed him to revive and strengthen an earlier approach based on Iwasawa theory. He later described the moment as “indescribably beautiful; so simple and so elegant” and “the most important moment of my working life.” The corrected proof was published in 1995. The Wiles story is one of the cleanest examples of a bigger truth in mathematics: the process is not just the road to the answer, it often is the answer, or it produces something even more valuable than the original goal.

« Plus vous mettez de l’effort à surmonter le problème, plus vous êtes heureux » : Cédric Villani appelle les doctorants à ne pas utiliser l’IA générative ➡️ l.leparisien.fr/kzwt

To everyone now claiming arXiv should let everyone freely post whatever: you already have venues like that. The fact arXiv is different is literally the only value it has over those others.

Suppose Galois Theory didn't exist and we asked: Polynomials of what degree can be solved by radicals? What answer would an AI system produce? Surely it would prove deg<5, but how would it look like? And would we human be motivated/able to formalize Galois theory out of it?

حالا دیگر «آقای کاریزما» شده‌ام، یک‌جورهایی همان «پابلو اسکوبار» دوستانم می‌گویند: «خفه شو کوین، فقط سوار ماشین شو»

Sandra from Bolt sending emails at 3 AM means she’s clearly in love with me🤌🏻

It is important that we all remain really calm about the Navier-Stokes situation. The problem has not yet a complete proof, and the recent publication from OpenAI is still in revision (and will be for many months). Mathematics is all about human understanding. If a proof is not understandable to humans, then it cannot be considered a proof by any mathematician (can you hear a tree fall in a forest if nobody around?). The work of understanding, expanding mathematics, enriching human knowledge is what academics need to do now with this document. AI is a tool, undeniably, but human knowledge is the objective. Another chapter of this story concerns the authorship of the alleged result(s). For years, mathematics has largely been a collaborative field, of course clashes between egos have happened here and there as anywhere else, but mathematicians are known by being really open about recent discoveries and for celebrating original contributions (after all, important theorems are named after the mathematicians who proved them). Working together is a must, while racing against another researcher or team of researchers often ends in a bitter way. In particular, Anthropic and OpenAI do not look like they are collaborating in this. For them, this is a race, a way of pleasing stakeholders, increasing percentages, revenues, numbers... they are, fundamentally, companies. It would be good to remember this.

We got Navier-Stokes proof before GTA 6

Ok but like want to mention Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge in the actual tweet where you claim credit, rather than in a separe quote-tweet not linked to from this one?

Only two beings to have solved one of the Millennium prize problems so far:

Would the world end if they stopped stroking Navier

Navier Stroked

This is the all-time high for math gossip and drama. There will never be another period of history where drama is flowing that hard into our community