<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: traes</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=traes</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 14:48:45 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=traes" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I would assume they are calling the snark from Noam Brown and Dan Roberts bullying, not the somewhat bland denial.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 11:24:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49608777</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49608777</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49608777</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Perhaps out of a sense of academic good will, knowing that he got there first?<p>It seems like the timeline according to OpenAI is that:<p>1. Buckmaster developed a counterexample to a reduced version of Navier-Stokes with Anthropic employee Levent<p>2. Rumors start spreading that Anthropic has solved Navier-Stokes<p>3. OpenAI learns this and starts throwing a ridiculous amount of compute at it, now knowing it's within reach of LLMs<p>4. Their LLMs (with human assistance) get FARTHER than Buckmaster, using the exact same method.<p>5. OpenAI reaches out to Buckmaster to negotiate a fair way to publish both results and properly assign credit<p>Perhaps they simply and honestly feel he is owed credit. I can't help but imagine it at least played some small part. I expect that's what Bubeck is going to claim: <a href="https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097214122471432349" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 08:18:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607230</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607230</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607230</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Because OpenAI employees kept leaking that Anthropic had a solution to Navier-Stokes and he wanted to figure out what was going on, since he was working on Navier-Stokes with an Anthropic employee. The rumor has been loudly circling the math community for the past week or so. For a bit of context, here's a timeline from mathematician and AI researcher Elliot Glazer:<p><a href="https://xcancel.com/ElliotGlazer/status/2096298696438906934#" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/ElliotGlazer/status/2096298696438906934#</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 08:06:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607118</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607118</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607118</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy.<p>[0] <a href="https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097214122471432349" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902</a><p>[2] <a href="https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603</a><p>[3] <a href="https://xcancel.com/_sholtodouglas/status/2097218331690578000" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/_sholtodouglas/status/209721833169057800...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 08:04:04 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607090</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607090</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607090</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>To be clear, Astra played little part in Buckmaster and Alpoge's work:<p>> We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeups and auditing our arguments.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 07:59:38 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607044</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607044</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49607044</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Scientists observe Einstein's gravity in the quantum world"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>No. From the paper linked above [0]:<p>> The phase of free fall is predicted in a purely quantum manner to have a dependence m/6 g^2T^3/ℏ + gmzT on the free-fall time T, where m is the mass of the object, g is the gravitational acceleration relative to the surface of Earth, and z in the spatial coordinate in the direction of gravity. This
prediction follows the calculated phase accumulated by an object accelerating in a linear potential, and has been made starting from almost one hundred years ago by Darwin, Kennard and others.<p>Apparently the phase shift is derivable from just adding a linear potential term  mgz to the Hamiltonian.<p>[0]: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.14535" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.14535</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 05:46:38 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605935</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605935</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605935</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Scientists observe Einstein's gravity in the quantum world"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Seems like they just added a linear gravitational potential term mgz to their hamiltonian and computed the phase change it would induce. They claim they experimentally confirmed the phase change. I didn't think that worked! They also claim its consistent with some kind of GR derivation, but I haven't looked at that.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 01:38:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604756</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604756</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604756</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The repo is public. You can just go look! It's really not that surprising; FLT is huge and has a ton of dependencies that need to be implemented, and there's a degree of sloppification that is probably blowing up the size by a few factors.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:31:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571827</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571827</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571827</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>25-50 seems like a pretty lowball estimate, I guess depending on your definition of "understand."</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:28:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571810</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571810</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571810</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>We have absolutely no idea if this was a brilliant breakthrough or not. They haven't released any explanation of how it was found. A problem being old and prestigious does not mean its solution is automatically a brilliant breakthrough.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:26:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571794</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571794</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571794</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Formalizing Fermat's Last Theorem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's true that his goal was not the full thing, but it was also not merely a Lean verified proof. From the blog post linked in the toptext:<p>> The work certainly achieves some of the aims of the EPSRC project, and indeed it goes much further in terms of what is formalized (I only promised the EPSRC that I would reduce FLT to the 1980s; this repo proves the whole thing). But I also promised several other things to EPSRC: firstly, that I would be making pull requests to Lean’s mathematics library, adding fundamental objects from modern number theory; this is ongoing. And secondly, and perhaps most importantly, that I would be creating a dynamic document enabling humans to explore the modern proof.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:17:11 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571721</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571721</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571721</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "“I just chose words carefully”"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>For clarity:<p><pre><code>  The autumn wind moves slow across the field,
  and every falling leaf now yields its fight.
  The summer gold at last has ceased to yield,
  and short days now give way to longer night.
  I walk alone beside a calm and quiet stream,
  and watch it slowly carry every fallen leaf.
  I think of you as some half-forgotten dream,
  and taste again that same old, bitter grief.
  The silent stars come out to watch it still,
  and pale moonlight falls gently on the hill.
  A lonesome owl calls out from past the mill,
  and time moves on, unhurried and calm, until
  the dawn returns to paint the sky brand new,
  and I still recall the love I lost with you.</code></pre></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 07:01:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506512</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506512</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49506512</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "I should have loved biology (2020)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Completely off topic, but I really don't understand the demographic of physics educators that are resistant to Dirac notation in a first QM course. It isn't really that hard to explain or understand, it's extraordinarily convenient, and it's essential for engaging with most quantum adjacent literature. I understand that it conceals the distinction between vector space and dual space a bit but it's really not that hard to get through. I may be biased because I learned the notation in week 2 of intro quantum, so I am curious if anyone with the opposite experience disagrees.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 20:50:43 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49380104</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49380104</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49380104</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Turns are Better than Radians (2022)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The title should say (2022)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 03:07:31 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369930</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369930</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369930</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Turns are Better than Radians (2022)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Very bold title! Turns are very convenient until you need to calculate a rate of change, as of course d/dx sin(2pi x) = 2pi cos(2pi x). Unfortunately this is a common enough problem that I will be sticking with the radian.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 03:06:03 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369919</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369919</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49369919</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Linear algebra done right"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I think the volume explanation is one of the most intuitive pieces of math in existence, personally! Uninvertibility of a tranformation corresponds to a volume of zero because the transformation must squish two dimensions together, leaving them impossible to differentiate, det(AB) = det(A)det(B) because applying two transformations applies their scaling successively, det(A^-1) = 1/det(A) because you have to undo the scaling to invert a transformation etc. I don't think the permutation definition is even strictly necessary; if I recall correctly Linear Algebra Done Wrong defines the determinant in terms of its geometric definition and develops its formula from the properties it must have. I think that the concept is well worth the investment of initial confusion. Axler disagrees, however.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:13:10 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49334376</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49334376</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49334376</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Linear algebra done right"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Note that "done right" means done with Axler's completely subjective and unusual hatred of determinants, chronicled here [0]. It is in no way "done right" in some definitive, rigorous way; most math professors I have spoken to either strongly disagree with the presentation or have no particular preference.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.axler.net/DwD.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.axler.net/DwD.html</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 10:18:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328713</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328713</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328713</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "Linear algebra done right"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This polemic: Sheldon Axler -- Down With Determinants<p><a href="https://www.axler.net/DwD.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.axler.net/DwD.html</a><p>A strange and unpopular opinion.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 10:10:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328658</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328658</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49328658</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "AI has access to a vastly larger working memory than the human brain"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There was no depth to mathematics in Euler's time, he made the depth. He arguably didn't understand analysis on a technical level as well as a modern undergraduate; as I recall, he was confident that all smooth functions are analytic. He had incredible intuition and was able to make great progress by trusting it, but playing around with tools you don't understand stops being effective once a field is past its infancy.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 10:13:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318622</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318622</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318622</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by traes in "AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>How fast do <i>your</i> monkeys type?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 09:58:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318544</link><dc:creator>traes</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318544</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49318544</guid></item></channel></rss>