The AI-generated writing makes this nearly impenetrable. The AI used does not have the same intuition as a human about what math concepts will be easy vs hard for its audience to grasp, and as a result this is simultaneously rambling and opaque.
I'm sure that if I had a back-and-forth with AI about the topic, it would answer all my questions and explain it well. This article isn't that.
At least the site had the grace not to list an author's name.
If I'm understanding this correctly, here 'solve' is being used in a loose or miniature sense. ie. it's not proving or disproving the conjecture but is a solution for how one part of the expression involved in analyzing it is evaluated
The AI-generated writing makes this nearly impenetrable. The AI used does not have the same intuition as a human about what math concepts will be easy vs hard for its audience to grasp, and as a result this is simultaneously rambling and opaque.
I'm sure that if I had a back-and-forth with AI about the topic, it would answer all my questions and explain it well. This article isn't that.
At least the site had the grace not to list an author's name.
If I'm understanding this correctly, here 'solve' is being used in a loose or miniature sense. ie. it's not proving or disproving the conjecture but is a solution for how one part of the expression involved in analyzing it is evaluated
The article isn't great. But it's nice to know about TxGraffiti! I always wondered what happened with Graffiti.
I thought this turned out to be a bug in the solver?
This article appears to be AI-written slop.
One program makes up questions, another one solves them.
True of humans as well