A computational no-coincidence principle

·ARC··

In a recent paper in Annals of Mathematics and Philosophy, Fields medalist Timothy Gowers asks why mathematicians sometimes believe that unproved statements are likely to be true. For example, it is unknown whether \(\pi\) is a normal number (which, roughly speaking, means that every digit appears in \(\pi\) with equal frequency), yet this is widely believed. Gowers proposes that there is no sign of any reason for \(\pi\) to be non-normal -- especially not one that would fail to reveal itself in...

Read full article →

Related Articles

Probing the loss-band sparsity assumption in Scientist AI
Alejandro Tlaie · LessWrong · 53m ago
SFT Drives Gemini’s Safety Properties
Josh Engels · Alignment Forum · 22d ago
Sequent: scale and automation for higher confidence in alignment
Geoffrey Irving · Alignment Forum · 25d ago
A Mike's-Eye View of ARC's Research
Michael Winer · ARC · 25d ago
My research: a computational cognitive neuroscience perspective on alignment
Seth Herd · Alignment Forum · 1mo ago