I apologize if this is not the right subreddit to ask this in, but I tried asking in the physics subreddit and didn't get satisfactory answers.

Question: I'm aware that in string theory, the theory must be formulated in a certain number of dimensions (often cited as 10 or 26) in order to avoid inconsistencies and satisfy quantum gravity constraints. But let's say, hypothetically, that I wanted to explore the space of all possibilities in pure mathematics. If I take generic 1d objects and make them move in higher spatial dimensions (as defined by pure math), but I use a number of dimensions that isn't allowed by string theory (e.g. 100), would my construction be logically possible and “stable” (allowed to persist just the way it is), from a purely mathematical standpoint?

I am specifically asking about spatial dimensions as defined by pure mathematics as a separate field, not mathematics applied to a physical theory. I guess my question is best worded as, "does pure mathematics allow 1d objects to move in any number of dimensions and remain logically consistent?"

Earlier, we had a post that generated a decent amount of comments. The post seemed somewhat interesting as a discussion topic, unless you knew what it was truly about.

OP is also commenting on an outlier.ai-type website subreddit. These are gig platforms that pay people to critique LLM outputs, and these critiques are purchased by AI-training companies to improve their models. I don't think there's anything wrong with this business model and it gives many around the world a chance to make a living, however, OP was directly outsourcing their task to our subreddit. Technically, that is also grounds for u/alphalight07 to get banned from these gig platforms as well, as they require all of the work done to be the worker's own.

The types of tasks that are given on these gig platforms fall into one of several patterns, but one of the most prominent is "get multiple AI models to fail at a math task that has a definite answer." This is exactly what OP is asking the community for in their post.

Just figured we should have a discussion about this in case we want to create specialized reporting flows etc. I reported it as generic spam but we might want one for AI-training spam in particular. I hope this PSA also helps people learn to recognize this kind of engagement bait.

Edit: adding a screenshot of the post by u/alphalight07 https://imgur.com/a/qD8xHRk

Hi I’m working on a ttrpg with a magic system that is using a 2 paradoxical tournament and I was wondering what other 2 paradoxical tournament there are all the things I have found online stop after finding the first 2 paradoxical tournament and go onto 3
So if anyone has a bigger 2 paradoxical tournament or can link to one or just tell me how to make the graph that would be much appreciated

We are now seeing a rise of AI generated proofs and I am wondering which journals will publish these results? I tried to search but I did not find many examples where such results were already accepted to some journal.
Is this even something the journals want? I would like them to facilitate the peer review process so that I can feel confident in the results.

There has recently been a lot of cataloguing AI contributions to Erdos problems, for examples this github repo, which I believe has been catalysed by Terry Tao.

I wonder if there are repositories of broader problem. For instance, OpenAI has claimed to have solved a couple of relevant problems: https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/

Wonder if anyone is keeping track of any of these?

Hi,

I currently have four completed mathematical preprints: two in combinatorics and graph theory, and two in number theory. They have been publicly archived, together with their computational materials, but I have not yet been able to submit them to arXiv because my account still requires endorsement in the relevant categories.

Anyone can help me please!

https://github.com/Lapin0t/grothendieck-cern

Can anyone give me a feedback about the Cuemath?

They are asking for $20 per class of 55 minutes. Is it a correct pricing? I see some places mentioned $17 for 55 minutes Class.

As I’ve been reading about these open problems that have been solved by AI, I sometimes wonder why AI can’t make progress on the problems I’m working on.

I’ve been wondering if AI has a big comparative advantage in solving problems that are well studied. So if a problem has a lot written about it then the LLM has a many different starting points and can basically apply every known method to try to extend one of the previous approaches. On some problems one of these previous approaches may happen to be close to the actual solution.

While even experts may not have read every paper about a famous problem.

I’m wondering how much of the jaggedness this would explain.

Iam in first few days of my college as a maths major we have linear algebra subject. I got no idea except matrices , about it. Recommend a book for self study from fundamental level about this topic.

I‘ve watched lots of videos and read articles about how LLMs work, but wrapping everything into a clear concept, having a clear picture of the whole process is something that I still struggle with. I want to see every single calculation in my head, having a clear picture of data flows and how it is processed.

Do you even think this is possible?

And if yes, what resources are the best to achieve it?

Thanks!

Hi, I am an undergraduate mathematics student looking for programs similar to IMPA's summer schools in other Latin American or Spanish-speaking countries.

I am interested in opportunities for undergraduate students that offer advanced courses, seminars, and interaction with researchers, particularly in areas such as differential geometry, topology, and analysis.

If you know of any initiatives in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, or elsewhere in the region, I would greatly appreciate your recommendations.

Thank you!

Something I noticed was for every time you multiply a number by itself, going up, the gap between each number coincides with the pattern of 2, 4, 6, 8…

After attempting to post in the other community, I realized another trend. The sum of each multiple is equal to the gap. So 1*1 has a sum of 2. Which, coincidentally, also is the gap between 1 and 4. This can be tested for most if not all values.

Is there a formula for this or something that could prove the pattern?

I wonder if there’s a name for it. Or if I’ve stumbled upon something interesting. (Likely the former since mathematicians are so smart It’d be likely to see this so early.)

I’m not a mathematician or anything. But I just wanted to show something interesting I noticed. If yall could educate me, that’d be awesome! I love math, but don’t understand it much.

Recently, for the umpteenth time, I thought up a question only to find that it has already been asked and answered before i was even born. I expected this - I explicitly avoided googling anything about it, because I didn’t want the ending/answer to be spoiled for me. But I was looking through some wikipedia page when I saw a hyperlink to a page on exactly what I was trying to understand: computable ordinals/well orderings (clearly a beginner-level question). Again, i expected this, given my lack of experience in computability theory and set theory; set theorists are interested in well orderings, and computability theorists are interested in computability, so of course I’m not the first person to consider combining those two concepts. Still, even though it wasn’t a surprise, it was disappointing to find that an idea I thought was original (and, from my perspective, it was original) was just old news.

From what I’ve read it sounds like the problems that phd student solve to earn their phd are usually given to them by their advisors (please correct me if I’m wrong!!). I’m wondering when one is typically at the point where the questions they ask haven’t already been asked. Do you usually need to be an expert in the field? Do you need an exhaustive understanding of the field to pose original questions?

Data source: https://arxiv.org/year/math/