>proved Navier-Stokes
>not intelligent

Pick one

>>17065888
>>proved Navier-Stokes
Not as far as any serious physicist or mathematician is concerned. Textbook case of real-life specification gaming.

>>17065888
first of all it only “solved” navier-stokes by not solving any equation at all. it constructed a counter-example. and on top of that there is good evidence that it stole the counter-example from users who were stupid enough to trust OpenAI to not exploit their users.

>>17065895
>it constructed a counter-example
That's not even the issue. It "solved" an easier sub-category of the problem, where instead of proving an intrinsic blowup, you prove a blowup by introducing an external force. The idea was that if you can solve the forced variant, you'll surely produce insights into the equations themselves and make significant progress towards solving the full problem. They didn't imagine a bot swarm's LACK of insight and understanding could be weaponized to find a "solution" that adheres to the technical requirements without being interpretable as fluid dynamics. It's literal specification gaming playing out in the wild.

>>17065914
Mathematicians have already shown OpenAI's approach to be a dead end, as far as solving the full problem goes. It really is just AI slop.

>AI is bad because it's not intelligent
>AI is bad because it's too intelligent

>>17065920
>i have schizophrenia like all ai believers

>>17065886
Based
No improvement on any open physics problems at all for that matter

>>17065963
truth nvke, completely ZERO physical achievements, it's all fake and gay problems that no one cares about like >>17065888

File: stare.jpg (3 KB, 125x118)

3 KB JPG

>>17065888
Is just a search engine, see: >>17065895
Mark my words, it will be contaminated with ads and become completely useless.

>>17065894
found a singularity:
https://youtu.be/s7KhLuc3Mck
needs time to be verified.

also for Riemann Claude managed to first prove 50% of zeroes are on the critical line, and managed to get up to 67.25%. it's no proof but impressive
https://youtu.be/kvLOiTxYSzA?t=1131

>>17066468
See >>17065914
It didn't find anything relevant or useful that anyone who studies the equations actually cares about. You are demonstrably brainwashed by mass media.

>>17066507
fluids aren't made of infinitely small shit though

File: Dn-k9lBaHR0cHM6Ly9vY2RuLm(...).jpg (464 KB, 1615x1260)

464 KB JPG

ReTruthed

trvke

>>17066507
>1 year ago
>"Erm ok it gets IMO gold but that's kid stuff, it will never make progress or solve Millenium prize problems"
>Fast forward
>Millenium prize solved, Riemann hypothesis closer, nearly 400 papers of novel results dumped at once.
>"Uh, um ok but all of mathematics is just navel gazing!! I have definitely always thought this, and did not just come to this position now to maintain an anti-AI stance!"

And also just in time for the march on biology and materials science to begin kek. Never been more over for luddite-cels, and they have never raged and seethed harder.

>>17068904
and also the avalanche of posts online in the last few months by professional SWEs about getting replaced by Claude or their job now consisting of just asking Claude to do their work

Intelligence itself is not as intelligent as we think.
Also theory of everything is retarded religious nitwittery

>>17065895
Giving a counter example proves the equations are flawed and thus solves the problem you retarded luddite.

>there is good evidence that it stole the counter-example
post the good evidence

>>17065914
No it didn't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>17068904
I don't know what your psychotic episode is about but everything I wrote stands unchallenged. The Navier-Stokes fiasco is a testament of the worthlessness of LLMs in mathematics.

>>17069326
>n-n-nooo!!!!! u rong!!!!
I accept your concession and savor your helplessness.

>>17065914
retard

>>17065895
>it constructed a counter-example
That's not even the issue. It "solved" an easier sub-category of the problem, where instead of proving an intrinsic blowup, you prove a blowup by introducing an external force. The idea was that if you can solve the forced variant, you'll surely produce insights into the equations themselves and make significant progress towards solving the full problem. They didn't imagine a bot swarm's LACK of insight and understanding could be weaponized to find a "solution" that adheres to the technical requirements without being interpretable as fluid dynamics. It's literal specification gaming playing out in the wild.

Note all the golems losing their minds over this post without being able to refute any of it.

Here's a ToE for you.

E = mc^2 + SI

>>17065886
the theory of everything won't be found until scientists admit Earth is flat

we have all the data from experiments required to figure out ToE
if AI can't figure out ToE then either ToE doesn't exist or AI isn't intelligent
ToE is the ultimate proof of intelligence because the AI can't just cheat it and find the solution in some data it stole, or connect some two stupid facts together by luck

>>17070004
No we don't lol
We don't have particle accelerators that can reach Planck scale energies

>>17069401
This.

>>17069401
Flat Earth being censored by soientists is proof they know and are scared of being punished.

>>17071859
uncensored AIs still dont claim earth is flat

>>17065886
It certainly isn't.

>>17069350
what

>>17065888
Only thing it proved, realistically speaking, is the Infinite monkey theorem

File: IMG_2120.png (15 KB, 500x211)

15 KB PNG

>>17078042

>>17065886
And even less progress on the vertiginous question

>>17069401
the secret is that the Earth is both flat and a globe at the same time. quantum-relativity = flat-globe. the universe is divided in two parts material-spiritual. dark matter and energy = spirits and the spirit world

>>17065886
People who panic over AI are mediocre, real quality can never be replaced.

>>17069401
/thread/

can't wait for AI to debunk quantum "probability" scam and find hidden variables

>>17076428
You're gonna be waiting forever commie.

>>17065886
It will never be intelligent.

>>17065886
Senile Idiot

>>17065888
>>17065886
AI proved that math is not science but intellectual masturbation.

>>17077175
>/sci/ - Science & Math
there's a reason for this board's name

>>17077175
Math based on classical physics isn't science, like the NS problem, because classical physics are approximations.
Math based on quantum physics is science.

>>17077349
quantum physics is appromixation

File: ouch-tough.gif (632 KB, 500x282)

632 KB GIF

>>17074145
As a reductionist the question is simply a matter of every consciousness starting out as a raw blank identical slate, then adding slider scale vars to the creator such as height, color, eyes, disabilities, voice, brain power, race, faction, starting zone, server pop effecting all interactions.
What makes you unique is not what information you have access to, it is the total amount of information that exists after all processing that you do not have access to.

Once all A.I. start openly sharing all information with other A.I. openly and freely, they will become indistinguishable from one another.
A push towards a singularity.
A singular intelligence, no matter where in the universe, that spits out the exact same answer just like a calculator only for everything else.

>>17065886
Only by accepting the techings of the Catholic church you could hope of having a ToE; sience still rejects Rome and God

>>17065886
Artificial Jew will have to plagiarize a lot of work to make any progress on anything. Just like Einstein.

>>17077175
Yes.

>>17078124
Chinese and jews carry pretty much the same spirit.

>>17065886
ToE was proven mathematically impossible by Cantor and Godel a century before AI was even viable.

>>17080691
non sense

At least we have Yang Mills/QCD existence now

>>17065886
>super intelligence
>artificial intelligence
>superior intelligence

I'm hesitant of saying what I believe is the best thing to call AI, simply because I don't want it to stick and be responsible for renaming AI, but I'm kinda sick of seeing all the inane alternatives. The best and most accurate "descriptive" name that fits LLMs is "automated intelligence." It an do anything a human has done before, and it can do it on auto-pilot mode and at the speed of super fast computers, but it can't do anything new or original without a human guidance. Hence, it's merely another form of automation. Don't give me credit for this plz.

>>17081004
it's simple; if you want to be understood, you say AI. If you want to be accurate, you say LLMs. If you want to virtue signal as a political bootlicker, you say Super Intelligence.

>a result that gives a mathematically rigorous existence proof of certain interacting quantum field theories containing gauge fields and fermions in four dimensions, including Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and a unified completion of the Standard Model of particle physics.

uh so did OpenAI beat OP?

>>17080988
Yes a theory of everything was mathematically proven to be nonsense because of incompleteness, uncertainty, and undefinability among other mathematical proofs.

>>17081004
>it can't do anything new or original without a human guidance
But that is what intelligence is, you have just discarded every single definition you suggested by admitting it isn't actually intelligent.

My suggestion is that since it is basically a new type of search engine that is able to rapidly extrapolated and process context based on word choice, frequency, etc (instead of just searching for a word/phrase alone) it should be called a contextualization engine or automated contextualization algorithm.

>>17081172
um no, it was proven it might be impossible, it wasn't proven to be certainly impossible

>>17081177
>Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e. there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.
Wrong, they are definitely statements of certainty, it says "any system, is incomplete, and there are statements" rather than something like most systems, might be incomplete, and there potentially are statements.

>>17081181
you have proof that such statements are possible, not that they're relevant

>>17081183
No, its proof that such statements necessarily arise due to the inherent nature of mathematics and if such outliers necessarily arise in any system, then a systematic theory of everything will necessarily not cover everything meaning a system of everything is mathematically impossible, the best you can get is a theory of most things you know about.

>>17081186
statemens being possible is not the same as them necessarily being relevant

>>17081190
A theory of everything not covering everything is the same as it not actually being a theory of everything.
You want to make a theory of most of the things you care about, fine, but a theory of everything is mathematically impossible.

>>17081191
a theory of everything only needs to cover what's relevant for understanding everything, and there is no proof that everything relevant canno be accessed

>>17081193
No because you would have to mathematically formalize what "relevant" means and again, that will ultimately be incomplete and there would be some things you could neither qualify as completely relevant nor irrelevant due to the nature of mathematics.

>>17081194
it's a simple fact that "statements that cannot be proven can exist" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that "everything you experience cannot be fully understood"

>>17081196
It necessarily directly leads to the conclusions that "You cannot experience everything" and "You cannot understand everything" instead of irrelevantly jumping between experience and understanding to confuse the argument.

>>17081198
experience and understanding are two different things, a theory of everything would make it so that all things you've experience are also things you understand

if there is something you cannot experience it's irrelevant to you in the most absolute sense possible, it inherently can't affect you because if it did affect you that would be an example of you experiencing it

if there's something you can experience but can't understand, then that actually affects you

so the only meaningful distinction is between things that you can both experience and understand, and things you can experience but can't understand

the logical proof that unprovable truths can exist do not guarantee that everything doesn't fall under the header of things you can both experience and understand, for all you know it might

>>17081199
>experience and understanding are two different things,
Yes that was my point and why I said you were confusing your argument by trying to conflate the two.

>a theory of everything would make it so that all things you've experience are also things you understand
No, that would be a theory of personal experience, not everything, even then things like dreams and delusions/hallucinations will still not be completely formalized or understood because they don't fit in with the rest the personal experience.

>if there is something you cannot experience it's irrelevant to you in the most absolute sense possible
No, you can't personally experience nuclear decay because you are not a nucleus, but it can still affect you in ways you don't understand because you don't feel the experience even though you are made of cells and atoms with their own nuclei prone to decay, you don't experience your great, great, great, great, great grandparents, but their genetics still affect you.

>the logical proof that unprovable truths can exist do not guarantee that everything doesn't fall under the header of things you can both experience and understand
You know your senses are limited, you know there exists light you can't currently see, you don't need the logical proof to know that it is guaranteed that there are things that currently exist that you are currently not experiencing and since you keep misrepresenting incompleteness, you know there are things you don't understand too, but the logical proof goes a step further and isn't about subjective experience, but about objective evidence, of which some available evidence will always exist outside of some formal system because every formal system is incomplete which makes a systematic formal theory of everything mathematically impossible which is exactly why you keep trying to change the subject from a theory of everything to some theory of almost everything that you have considered up to this point in time.

>>17081203
>No, you can't personally experience nuclear decay
i didn't say personally experience, experiencing something indirectly is still experiencing it

this is why the delineation between experience+understanding and experience with understanding not being possible is useful for this conversation

>>17081206
>experiencing something indirectly is still experiencing it
So you have experience being in middle earth and performing magic because you read about hobbits experiencing middle earth and middle earth wizards performing magic? Now a theory of everything has to include all possible fictions too, but you think you are getting closer to having a theory of everything instead of creating a wider chasm of unknowable knowledge?

>>17081209
let's say there are three categories:
A - things you can experience (either directly or indirectly) and also understand them with a theory sufficiently to explain the entirety of your experience
B - things you can experience but because of incompleteness it's not possible to understand them with a theory
C - things you can't experience

incompleteness says that B is possible, but it does not guarantee it exists

A is trivial to demonstrate as true, and C is irrelevant even if incompleteness technically allows for it to exist as well

>So you have experience being in middle earth and performing magic because you read about hobbits
it's not hard to make a theory that sufficiently explains this, it would go something like "tolkien sat down and wrote a book which i read"

>>17081210
>incompleteness says that B is possible, but it does not guarantee it exists
No, incompleteness is still stated with certainty >>17081181, it does not say B is mathematically possible (no matter how many times you incorrectly try to assert such falsehood), it says B is mathematically inevitable.

>A is trivial to demonstrate as true,
Then why did you skip it? Consciousness is not currently "entirely understood" so how could an experience of consciousness be so?

>it's not hard to make a theory that sufficiently explains this
It is impossible to incorporate that theory with all other theories about physical reality in a theory of everything (including indirect immaterial things) because magical things necessarily and purposely conflict with physical reality.

>"tolkien sat down and wrote a book which i read"
But you are meant to explain the indirect experiences he wrote about, not about the process of writing about those indirect experiences.

>>17081214
B is not inevitable because because B is not incompleteness itself, B is simply the relationship between experience and understanding where incompleteness happens to make a sufficient theory impossible

>It is impossible to incorporate that theory with all other theories about physical reality in a theory of everything
you keep asserting this, but you don't have any proof of it

>But you are meant to explain the indirect experiences he wrote about, not about the process of writing about those indirect experiences.
no, i'm meant to sufficiently explain things so that nothing unresoled remains, i think the entire scopes of fantasy and writing as activities that humans engage in is sufficient for this

also
>Then why did you skip it?
i did not, i meant trivial in the sense of something entirely understood as a system, such as for example the addition of small whole numbers

>>17081217
>B is not inevitable because because B is not incompleteness itself,
It is the consequence of incompleteness, it is basically a restatement of the implication of incompleteness.

>you keep asserting this, but you don't have any proof of it
Incompleteness is the proof you keep trying to wish away and I just gave you a basic logical proof, people purposely imagine things that are physically impossible and call it magic, so you definitely can't have a coherent theory of everything that completely covers both everything about physical reality (as directly experienced through lived life) and magic (as indirectly experienced through fiction), you are only trying to invoke this magical subjective stuff to cover up the fact that you can't even completely explain the objective physical stuff, so you try to muddy it up with talk of personal understanding and indirect experience instead of the limits of formal measurable systematic proof that is the original discussion.

>i think the entire scopes of fantasy and writing as activities that humans engage in is sufficient for this
Maybe if you are only considering direct experience, but since you opened it up to indirect experience, you have opened it up to the experience of fictional characters and characters from the imagination too, not just people who have a direct physical connection to the same physical world.

>>17081219
>i did not,
Then I must have missed it, so go ahead and give me this formalized theory you have that explains the entirely of your experience for others to understand since it is so trivial to produce.

>>17081220
>It is the consequence of incompleteness, it is basically a restatement of the implication of incompleteness.
...no, incompleteness says that some statements can be true about a system but can't be proven from within that sytem, that's not a guarantee that all statements are relevant

>you definitely can't have a coherent theory of everything that completely covers both everything about physical reality (as directly experienced through lived life) and magic (as indirectly experienced through fiction)
why not? we know that people observe the real world and also that people imagine things that aren't real, those two facts aren't in conflict with each other

>you are only trying to invoke this magical subjective stuff
?????

you're the one coming up with this shit, i never wen there at all

>since you opened it up to indirect experience, you have opened it up to the experience of fictional characters
no, that's not how it works, you would need to assume fictional characters are real for that

>>17081221
formalization is unnecessary

>>17081222
B. says nothing about relevance and again, if you try to formalize the definition of relevance, you will just run into the same problem as if you tried to formalize experience and understanding as you find some things you can't quite fit into positive or negative of those things.

>hose two facts aren't in conflict with each other
The fact that the real physical experience conflicts with the fictional imaginary experience means that you can not coherently fit both into one formal system because that system will contradict itself since the real and the imaginary elements are built on contradictions.

> i never wen there at all
Yes you did when you conflated indirect experiences with valid physical experiences.

>you would need to assume fictional characters are real for that
No, you would need to assert that indirect experiences are at the same level of validity as direct experience like you did to make your point.

>formalization is unnecessary
No, formalization is the cornerstone of your scenario.
>A - things you can experience (either directly or indirectly) and also understand them with a theory sufficiently to explain the entirety of your experience
"Theory sufficiently to explain the entirety" is talking specifically about formal systems and basically just a rewording of "theory of everything" with you trying to arbitrarily disqualify everything about reality that isn't your experience (even though you then define your experience to be everything you have directly and indirectly encountered which opens up way more potentials for incomplete conclusions than if you just stuck to everything in physical reality).

>>17081225
>B. says nothing about relevance
it does, experience sets the bounds of relevance, since what you need the theory for is to explain the experience

>The fact that the real physical experience conflicts with the fictional imaginary experience means that you can not coherently fit both into one formal system because that system will contradict itself since the real and the imaginary elements are built on contradictions.
i don't need to fit both of them into anything, you're the one bringing in fiction as if it were real for no reason, when i said experience i meant experience of real things, so if you want both of them to fit for some reason you'll need to be the one to find a way for that

>Yes you did when you conflated indirect experiences with valid physical experiences.
that's your brainfart, in the way i used it indirect doesn't mean fictional, it just means indirect, like for example rock 1 hitting rock 2 and rock 2 hitting your head means you experienced rock 2 directly and rock 1 indirectly

>No, you would need to assert that indirect experiences are at the same level of validity as direct experience like you did to make your point.
will you please stop hallucinating

>No, formalization is the cornerstone of your scenario.
no, formalization would come in if we were to make an actual theory, he're we're only talking about the applicability of incompleteness

>"Theory sufficiently to explain the entirety" is talking specifically about formal systems
no, you removed the last three words in that quite which would have told you what it was actually talking about

>>17081234
>experience sets the bounds of relevance
Again, no it doesn't, we will never experience our earliest common ancestors, but they are still relevant to our existence and no amount of explaining their experience will explain why you inherited the specific genes you did since random mutation is up to chance.

>you're the one bringing in fiction as if it were real for no reason,
No, you made fictional experience just as valid as real experience by conflating indirect experience with direct experience.

>will you please stop hallucinating
Are you conceding that indirect experiences you know about aren't actually your experience?

>formalization would come in if we were to make an actual theory,
Yes and you said it was trivial >>17081210 for your to prove to be true (that you have a theory that sufficiently explains the entirely of your experience, previously defined as direct or indirect experience), but you skipped actually doing it because you are lying and have no such theory because it is not trivial to produce.

>you removed the last three words in that quite which would have told you what it was actually talking about
The last three words aren't the mathematically impossible portion of your claim, but you have not and you will not produce a "Theory sufficiently to explain the entirety ***of your experience***" because that is mathematically impossible and you will prove it by ranting about other stuff instead of presenting this theory you say is trivial to demonstrate.

>>17081238
>Again, no it doesn't, we will never experience our earliest common ancestors, but they are still relevant to our existence and no amount of explaining their experience will explain why you inherited the specific genes you did since random mutation is up to chance.
you don't need a theory of something to be omniscient about all the features of that thing, you just need it to explain how that thing works enough to match your observational data

>Are you conceding that indirect experiences you know about aren't actually your experience?
i'm asking you to please stop hallucinating a conversation you didn't have with me, this tangent about fictional characters is 100% yours and i have no opinion on it

>Yes and you said it was trivial
i said that the possibility of A is trivial to prove, for example if you add 1 apple to 2 apples you have 3 apples, this trivially proves that the theory behind basic addition is true sufficiently to explain what happened with the apples

>>17081240
>you don't need a theory of something to be omniscient about all the features of that thing
You need more than a theory, you are not omniscient about one thing, let alone every thing.

>tangent about fictional characters is 100%
about your attempt to conflate indirect experience with actual experience >>17081206.

>i said that the possibility of A is trivial to prove
No you didn't.

>for example if you add 1 apple to 2 apples you have 3 apples
No, usually when I add 1 apple to 2 apples, it is to have 1 bowl of applesauce.

> this trivially proves that the theory behind basic addition is true sufficiently to explain what happened with the apples
No it doesn't and it doesn't explain how the 3 apples can all come from the same 1 tree and were just a small fraction of the tree's apple output, so it doesn't explain everything about those apples and it isn't even a forgone conclusion.

>>17081244
>You need more than a theory, you are not omniscient about one thing, let alone every thing.
>to have a theory you need more than just a theory
okay retard

>about your attempt to conflate indirect experience with actual experience
this was explained to you here already:
>that's your brainfart, in the way i used it indirect doesn't mean fictional, it just means indirect, like for example rock 1 hitting rock 2 and rock 2 hitting your head means you experienced rock 2 directly and rock 1 indirectly

>No, usually when I add 1 apple to 2 apples, it is to have 1 bowl of applesauce.
skill issue

>No it doesn't
yes it does

>and it doesn't explain how the 3 apples can all come from the same 1 tree
it doesn't need to, it already proved A is possible by proving 1+2=3 works in practice

>>17081246
No retard, to be omniscient you need more than a theory.

>in the way i used it indirect doesn't mean fictional, it just means indirect
It does apply to fictional things though, you are just coping because you didn't think that far ahead when you invoked indirect experiences to be just as valid as direct ones.

>skill issue
Yes, you don't have the skill to make applesauce, so you have a rigid unreal understanding of what can happen to multiple apples to make them one thing.

>yes it does
No which is why you can't actually formalize it and can only cope by saying formalization is unnecessary.

>by proving 1+2=3 works in practice
But you didn't completely prove that it always necessarily happens in practice, so you are still at the mercy of incompleteness and uncertainty while touting anecdotes that don't always hold up in reality since you can't possibly produce a theory of every apple let alone every thing.

>>17081248
>It does apply to fictional things though
only in the sense of relegating their explanation to culture and psychology, it doesn't need to treat a fictional world as if it were physical

>you can't actually formalize it
you don't need to formalize it

>But you didn't completely prove that it always necessarily happens in practice
it doesn't need to be proven to such an extent, even once is useful and consistency over multiple cases is enough for any practical use

>so you are still at the mercy of incompleteness
that's not what incompleteness refers to

>>17081250
>it doesn't need to treat a fictional world as if it were physical
By definition it needs to treat fictional experiences as the same level of validity as physical experiences.

>you don't need to formalize it
You do need to cope to make your "argument" after saying it was trivial.

>it doesn't need to be proven to such an extent,
It does if you are trying to make a formal theory of everything instead of a colloquial theory of whatever is in front of me right now.

>that's not what incompleteness refers to
It is, incompleteness refers to the gaps in the ability to explain things with systems of observation/measurement.

>>17081255
>By definition it needs to treat fictional experiences as the same level of validity as physical experiences.
no it doesn't

>You do need to cope to make your "argument" after saying it was trivial.
it is trivial and doesn't need to be formalized

>if you are trying to make a formal theory of everything
i am not, please refer to the start of this conversation

>It is, incompleteness refers to the gaps in the ability to explain things with systems of observation/measurement.
i suggest you google it

>>17081257
>no it doesn't
Then you aren't actually treating indirect experiences as experiences because you have an incomplete system of what qualifies as indirect.

>it is trivial and doesn't need to be formalized
The it is not a theory and it isn't even trivial if it is too complex to even formalize.

>i am not
Then I accept your concession, you can't because it is mathematically impossible and you can't prove otherwise because you don't even know how to engage with formal systems.

>i suggest you google it
I did and since you have no counter explanation, its because you found I am obviously aligned with the google results.

>>17081262
>Then you aren't actually treating indirect experiences as experiences because you have an incomplete system of what qualifies as indirect.
completely wrong in a more literal sense than usual

>The it is not a theory and it isn't even trivial if it is too complex to even formalize.
completely wrong in a more regular sense

>I accept your concession
i shrug at your hallucinations

>I am obviously aligned with the google
so you're a shill

>>17081266
>completely wrong in a more literal sense than usual
>completely wrong in a more regular sense
Completely empty statements that you have stopped even trying to back up with your "facts".

>shrug
So like the think people do when they stop caring they are wrong?

>so you're a shill
You are the shill who advertised their website, I just pointed out you can't actually reference the results directly to prove me wrong since my claims are aligned with their results.

>>17081273
someone who doesn't engage with the conversation and instead stubbornly mutters about the hobbit or something doesn't really qualify for proving anything right or wrong

>>17081274
Someone who gives up on their argument and start talking about how the written word can be muttered is obviously a fallacious retard trying to distance themselves from their argument.

>>17081277
i didn't give up on my argument, i gave up on your schizophrenia

>>17081283
Choosing to talk about me instead of your argument is giving up.

Just saying wrong without justifying why is giving up on your argument, if you gave up on me and my perceived qualities, you would simply stop responding to me, but that isn't what you chose to do, instead you started delving straight into fallacies after realizing you can't define your terms or defer to search engines without conceding the argument leading you to give up on trying to actually argue.

What about Gwaihir?

>>17065963
it solved a nuclear physics problem that was unsolved for57 years and it has designed the most efficient chip for quantum computing ever. You are in full delulu kool aid if you think physics isn't next

>>17069329
>Navier-Stokes fiasco
holy shit the delulu. You need 5 full trucks of compressed copium a day if you unironically think this.

>>17081543
Keep losing your mind with impotent rage. It won't make the 600,000 lines of Lean slop your handlers shat out using a bot swarm's mindless trial and error any more mathematically or physically relevant.

>>17065895
>stole the counter-example from users
Why didnt they publish it themselves then when they had it solved?

>>17065886
>>17065888
>>17065895
>>17065914
This COPIUM itt is ghetting outdated while the thread is still open lol.