Let chat

[BlueZen]

I think OP got banned. The, uh, "pretty avatar" was probably not a real person.

No! How could that be?!

I don’t think you understand GenAI. When they say “it’s proved novel math theorems” that’s not really true. It’s some specific variant but basically the same as an existing proof.

The five color problem was solved using computers, but not GenAI, which has no expertise in anything.

Wait. What?

Hold on.

Are you telling me that AI disproved *four* color theorem by generating a map that requires five colors? Or are you saying that computers were used to prove the four color theorem in like... 1976?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Or are you saying that computers were used to prove the four color theorem in like... 1976?

This , as I am sure you are very well aware.

I think many are totally bamboozled by the claims made for GenAI. People think it’s magic, it’s not - again as I am sure you are aware .

 

[TheLobster]

Or are you saying that computers were used to prove the four color theorem in like... 1976?

The original proof for four color theorem had over a thousand of specific cases which were impractical to verify by hand, so the authors used some of the early computers to do it. It was somewhat controversial at the time, but it has been widely accepted for decades now. (Current proofs also reduced the number of cases to a few hundred).

 

[MrPixel]

I think OP got banned. The, uh, "pretty avatar" was probably not a real person.

Oh, I think they got their money's worth.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not really. I've been here long enough to get to know Em, and various other posters too. And I know which ones bring positive energy to this forum and which ones bring negative energy.

Good to know you consider bullying and attacking the folks running the site positive energy

 

[DEFCOM5]

I think OP got banned. The, uh, "pretty avatar" was probably not a real person.

Who could have guessed it was a bot?

 

[VallesMarineris]

Math not your thing?

What do you think is next in structural biology now that cryogenic-electron microscopy has become quotidian?

Depending on how big an advance has to be to be called a "breakthrough", my guess would be that the next breakthrough in structural biology will be to use ML to model metabolic paths. That will depend on another advance-- that maybe we should consider its own breakthrough-- of using ML to model dynamically conformational proteins, RNA, etc.

 

[Britva415]

I don’t think you understand GenAI

They didn't say GenAI.

You're right, though, that they did say AI would prove it. And that's wrong.

It's very likely that AI models which aren't GenAI and which aren't LLMs will aid human math researchers in discovering new proofs. That's not very different from previous means of "using computers" to help discover math proofs, yet at the same time it is.

Do you think Riemann is correct about the nontrivial zeros lying on a vertical line?

She said she thought there might be promising avenues regarding proving it, so

Besides:

I think the attitude of most mathematicians is that it better be correct, or else they'll have a lot to unwind.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Depending on how big an advance has to be to be called a "breakthrough", my guess would be that the next breakthrough in structural biology will be to use ML to model metabolic paths. That will depend on another advance-- that maybe we should consider its own breakthrough-- of using ML to model dynamically conformational proteins, RNA, etc.

Protein design seems to be a coming thing. A positive use of AI (ML as you say rather than GenAI). Cryo-EM still has a limitation around how many daltons the target has to be. Maybe the XFEL will come back in fashion .

 

[EmilyMiller]

Do you think Riemann is correct about the nontrivial zeros lying on a vertical line?

I’m not a mathematician - I used to be a biologist - but I’ve always been fascinated by math. As I understand it, the number of theorems whose proof starts, “Assuming RH,” is very large. All the non-trivial zeros found to date have a real component of 1/2, but that’s not a proof of course.

It’s interesting that they dramatically improved the upper bound on the number of non-trivial zeros not on the critical line last year, after the field has been dormant for many years.

 

[DEFCOM5]

The discussion between @Britva415 and @EmilyMiller is SO ABOVE my head!

 

[Comshaw]

Or someone taking the OP desire to chat at face value, and proposing a topic of conversation that she herself considers fun.

Interesting defence of EM's post. You really believe that do you? If so I've got a great deal on a no longer floating, floating bridge for you. And it's cheap too!

The other option probably would have been to tell the OP that there are dedicated forums for people (and/or bots) who want to ********, and the AH isn't one of them.

That would have been the polite thing to do.

But the OP never said that they wanted to have sexy fun, they just indicated that they wanted to chat. So @EmilyMiller's proposed topic was as valid as any.

Yeah, that's like walking into a biker bar and telling everyone you want to chat about hogs. And when you reveal you know nothing about pan heads, rake, trail and frame geometry, you tell them you meant swine. It would be soooooo realistic and go over soooo well.

I really doubt that a newcomer opening a thread her made Em feel either jealous or inferior.

This I agree with, however some people can tell the difference between having fun with someone and making fun of someone, especially when the former is claimed to camouflage the execution of the latter.

Comshaw

 

[XerXesXu]

This is a porn site. Can I be the only one wondering how the semen got on Guth and Maynard’s paper? Was it written on tissue paper, were they writing in bed?

 

[TheRedChamber]

Interesting defence of EM's post. You really believe that do you? If so I've got a great deal on a no long floating, floating bridge for you. And it's cheap too!

That would have been the polite thing to do.

Yeah, that's like walking into a biker bar and telling everyone you want to chat about hogs. And when you reveal you know nothing about pan heads, rake, trail and frame geometry, you tell them you meant swine. It would be soooooo realistic and go over soooo well.

This I agree with, however some people can tell the difference between having fun with someone and making fun of someone, especially when the former is claimed to camouflage the execution of the latter.

Comshaw

Ssh, you're being misogynist.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I've been a part of a lot of fora, and never one where "let have a fun" was entitled to so much deference.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I've been a part of a lot of fora, and never one where "let have a fun" was entitled to so much deference.

Misogyny is about regulating women. Particularly ones who make guys feel inadequate or stupid. Anyone who thinks that a man would be treated this way isn’t paying very close attention. Tale as old as time…

 

[VallesMarineris]

The discussion between @Britva415 and @EmilyMiller is SO ABOVE my head!

Let me recommend:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/

Quanta has news articles about some of the latest breakthroughs in science and math, by journalists who understand the science and math and are able to explain the concepts and why they're important without talking down to non-specialists.

Quanta has several articles about RH, which really is mind-bogglingly profound. How can complex analysis have anything to do with prime numbers? For example:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/videos/the-riemann-hypothesis-explained/

Have fun!

 

[EmilyMiller]

Some context, not that facts mean anything to people who believe QAnon. The late EstherBannon posted on this forum with a similar intent on Saturday. It seems @AH_Mod has deleted the thread. I politely suggested Personals or RP, providing links. Others were less polite.

They also posted essentially the same thread to many other places at the same time, including images of ‘themselves’ in most cases. Mostly this led to disbelief in the other forums. Occasionally it led to ridicule.

So this is not some poor innocent newbie who hasn’t had this place explained to them.

Then there are small number of people here who have highly motivated thinking when it comes to anything to do with me. They rush to attack without checking facts, or more likely don’t really care about facts. We see this mentality daily elsewhere of course.

But hey, it’s all good fun, right? Just boys being boys. Where’s the harm?

 

[Comshaw]

Ssh, you're being misogynist.

Yeah. I'm such a misogynist.

Me thinks that someone who uses the term a lot needs to read one of Aesop's Fables, numbered 210 in the Perry Index, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Misogyny is about regulating women. Particularly ones who make guys feel inadequate or stupid. Anyone who thinks that a man would be treated this way isn’t paying very close attention. Tale as old as time…

Absolutely, it is. BUT, that doesn't give a woman a pass to act any way she wishes without being called on her behavior. And every male who calls her out on unacceptable behavior isn't being misogynistic. However, tagging every male who disagrees with you as one is crappy behavior.

Comshaw

 

[BlueZen]

Some context, not that facts mean anything to people who believe QAnon. The late EstherBannon posted on this forum with a similar intent on Saturday. It seems @AH_Mod has deleted the thread. I politely suggested Personals or RP, providing links. Others were less polite.

They also posted essentially the same thread to many other places at the same time, including images of ‘themselves’ in most cases. Mostly this led to disbelief in the other forums. Occasionally it led to ridicule.

Yup, that's how I remember it happening.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Absolutely, it is. BUT, that doesn't give a woman a pass to act any way she wishes without being called on her behavior. And every male who calls her out on unacceptable behavior isn't being misogynistic. However, tagging every male who disagrees with you as one is crappy behavior.

Comshaw

Dude,

You tried to correct me about something where I was totally right and you were totally wrong. You doubled down on it despite me having a graduate degree in the area and you demonstrably not understanding the terminology I was using let alone anything else.

And you’ve borne a grudge ever since. Presumably as no woman can possibly ever know more than you on a subject.

Hey if you want to call that world class pettiness rather than misogyny that’s cool. You won’t let this incident go. So I have a way to deal with that.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Absolutely, it is. BUT, that doesn't give a woman a pass to act any way she wishes without being called on her behavior.

What behavior? Posting in a thread that should be deleted anyway?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Yup, that's how I remember it happening.

I had a convo with another female AHer about it. They had given Esther the benefit of the doubt until they saw what else they had been posting. They then saw Esther for what they were.

Jumping the shark is rife on this thread, it’s actually hilarious how far the usual suspects have overreached themselves in their eagerness to attack

 

[EmilyMiller]

What behavior?

Behavior unbecoming of a woman, of course. As defined by a man. But obviously not misogyny.