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

Training Model to Predict Its Own Generalization: A Preliminary Study
Tianyi (Alex) Qiu · LessWrong · 3d ago
A Theoretical Game of Attacks via Compositional Skills
Xinbo Wu, Huan Zhang, Abhishek Umrawal, Lav R. Varshney · ArXiv cs.CL · 3d ago
BioVeil MATRIX: Uncovering and categorizing vulnerabilities of agentic biological AI scientists
Kimon Antonios Provatas, Avery Self, Ioannis Mouratidis, Ilias Georgakopoulos-Soares · ArXiv q-bio · 3d ago
Irretrievability; or, Murphy's Curse of Oneshotness upon ASI
Eliezer Yudkowsky · LessWrong · 4d ago
Verbalized Eval Awareness Inflates Measured Safety
Santiago Aranguri · LessWrong · 4d ago