Missing cause it's not true.

> and [Erdős problems are] sufficiently uninteresting that people have not spent that much effort trying to solve them.

Note that this is not really true of this problem in particular.

No, the thing the LLM did is not a proof, it's the opposite. It's proving that the conjecture is false.

Reductio ad absurdum is a technique to prove something.

Yes. One point I don't usually see people address is that using external dependencies has much of the same properties.

Developers often depend on external libraries like things for Image processing, Numpy, etc. Do they have to "own" the code in those external libraries and review them, in the same way people sometimes insist you have to review all AI-generated code? Do developers have to be able to recreate Numpy by themselves, even if their field isn't necessarily numerical optimization etc?

Those seem like very high and unreasonable bars.

Yep, just lost after I think >5 years. But not because of your comment, because of GP comment.

I'm not quite sure I understand the connection.

I see one, but then maybe I am just seeing things.

The wikipedia page about "worse is better" re: software linked above states:

  It refers to the argument that software quality does not necessarily increase with functionality: that there is a point where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability.

Copernicus' idea about money has a similar structure - "better" money such as precious metals, art, etc. is being hoarded due to its perceived desirability, leading to more "worse" money in circulation. As a result, the "worse" money is actually "better" at fulfilling its role as currency (bc it's not hoarded). So there is also a point where "worse" becomes "better".

Bad money drives out good money only if there is a legal tender law such that both have to be accepted for the same nominal value. In this case, good money is hoarded because it cannot be traded for its true value.

Interesting story. Dan Wells and Brandon Sanderson will be very happy. :)

That makes this more ok, IMO. I'm otherwise against "AI-edited" being part of the rules — it's very hard to draw the line (does asking an AI for synonyms of a word count?). AI-editing is especially a valuable tool for non-native-English speakers or similar.

Despite commenting on this literally five seconds ago in the sibling comment, I hadn't made the connection that if "vav" is V, then using "vav vav" is like "VV" which is like "W". I wonder if this is a real thing.

In any case, I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence, I don't think it's a stylistic thing, unless I'm missing something.

It's pronounced the same as in English. Wiz, Waze, Wix. It's written with "double vav" in Hebrew, not just a single vav which would make it read as Viz.

Yes, but it’s fair to say that this is a foreign language vowel even though we do not have problem to pronounce

tysm