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

Loss of Oversight: How AI Systems May Become Harder to Audit, Monitor, and Investigate
Jordan Taylor · LessWrong · 35m ago
The Case for Evaluating Model Behaviors
jsteinhardt · Alignment Forum · 20h ago
Mechanistic estimation for expectations of random products
Jacob Hilton · ARC · 5d ago
Multipolar Civilisation Depends on Maintaining an Attacker’s Dilemma
Naci Cankaya · LessWrong · 14d ago
Using Base-LCM to Monitor LLMs
Éloïse Benito-Rodriguez · LessWrong · 14d ago