AI Proved the Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis. What Happens Now?

Is that a requirement though? If the AI used existing understanding/methods (which I assume it did) then there's nothing really "new" there, right? Shouldn't it be possible to get understanding from how the existing methods were used? Or, even knowing it's true, cull an incredible number of paths from the problem space around it, to make finding understanding easier?

I'm not a mathematician, but I've always been able to find understandings from exploring the paths starting from either direction of the conceptual graph that exists between a "problem" and a "solution".

The benefit is in:

> Mathematicians have been studying the paper intensely in the couple of weeks since its release. Peter Sarnak, a prominent number theorist at Princeton University, has decided to repurpose a course he’s teaching this semester to study it. Radziwiłł says he can now sketch the proof’s arguments in half a page, while more involved write-ups by other mathematicians range from seven to 13 pages. (As of this writing, these have not yet been published, but are circulating privately.)

Third paragraph from the end of TFA:

Mathematicians are both frustrated and excited by OpenAI’s work. Sarnak, for his part, said in an email that he won’t be satisfied that it’s “a Theorem” until humans check and understand all the details. But “the general feeling is one of relief,” Radziwiłł said. There are scores of results across not just number theory but also geometry and theoretical computer science that the proofs of quasi-Riemann will, in a swift stroke, establish as mathematical truths.

The fact that a piece of software compiles does not necessarily mean that it is correct. The same applies to Lean; in fact, some type theorists are not particularly satisfied with the current state of Lean or the direction in which it is heading.

Mathematician, but not my area. I'd do the same.

Probably the 7/8 has more tricks and special cases to get the better bound. Also, to make the English version close to the Lean version it probably expands some details. So it's longer.

The idea is to understand the 11/12 version, add a few intermediate steps, and get an intuitive understanding of it. Then in a second step go for the 7/8 paper, hopping it's an extension of the 11/12 paper.

Then try to guess 5/6, perhaps as centaur math...

I kinda hate the hard statement that AI "proved" something, when no expert human actually had a chance to look and digest properly the so-called "proof". IMO this whole proof-dump looks like a publicity stunt; just imagine that you have access to a very potent tool, and you strongly believe that it is capable of tackling problems of QRH level, why would you dump hundreds of hard proofs targeted at different areas, rather than focusing on a couple of problems, verifying the bits on the go with experts? It is almost like a company that was caught doing loud yet somewhat empty statements previously, once again is trying to hit the biggest PR coverage rather than trying to cooperate with mathematicians to actually solve those problems.