5 Answers

  1. AI can Know and be Able to – by many orders of magnitude more than any of the most brilliant mathematicians and even all the mathematicians of the entire planet –

    this means that AI is potentially an absolute champion in any science and evidence.

    1. N. M. Zobin, B. S. Mityagin, Continuum of pairwise non-isomorphic nuclear F-spaces without a basis, Sib. Math. Zhurnal, 1976, volume 17, number 2, 249-258
    2. S. G. Gindikin, G. M. Henkin, ” Integral formulas and integral geometry for ∂ – cohomology in CP(n)”, Func. analysis and its adj., 18:2 (1984), 26-39;

    3. S. G. Gindikin, G. M. Henkin, ” Penrose transformation and complex integral geometry”, Results of Science and Technology Ser. Let's lie. probl. mat., 17, VINITI, Moscow, 1981, 57-111;

    This list can be continued indefinitely

  2. I answered this question above. If you haven't read my answer that I wrote above,then let me know. Such theorems can be read in my book: BBK 16.2.3. K 683-V. I. Korolchuk. “The solution of famous mathematical problems”. Simferopol: Tavriya,2oo4, – with ISBN 966-572-468-1.

    These are Theorems #33; # 34; #35 on pages 111-116. I saw their solution in the table that I compiled to find the regularities of the problem on pages 367-368 p. 12 of the” Theory of Numbers ” by A. A. Bukhshtab.I saw the solution of the problem, and I had to work on the proof of the Theorems.

    And not only these theorems(№33;№34;№35),but also a proof that a rectangular Euler parallelepiped does not exist. And some of my other Theorems(solutions to problems in Number Theory).

    Almost all the proofs in my book are based on Theorem No. 1-this is an unknown property of natural numbers, which I applied for the first time since 1990,regularly since 1997 ,and was able to prove(in a clear form from the third time at the end of 2000 ).

    The AI won't know about this feature for a while yet.

  3. These include absolutely any theorem, simply because the computer can't prove anything in principle. Roughly speaking, the computer simply converts some signals into other signals, according to some algorithm. And algorithms are written by people.
    Therefore, if you see some proof of a theorem, it means that this proof was created by a person.

  4. I think so. Such theorems should be based on new axioms. The computer is not able to put forward new axioms or constants, and uses only the data stored in its memory and calculation algorithms. A conscious being, on the other hand, can not only find completely unexpected, unusual constants, but also change the calculation system itself. So, contrary to radical futuristic forecasts, an unconscious computer cannot replace a person.

Leave a Reply