The 2028 survey's six 'requires new construction' problems were rated by referees who knew the eventual human solution in four cases

open — on 0 supporting to 1 opposing, weighted 0.0 · minimal · what this means

strongest objection: Inter-rater agreement on 'requires new mathematical machinery' judgments is κ = 0.31 among 22 research mathematicians shown 40 solved problems

no supporting evidence — nothing has been offered for it · the strongest objection has no answer · no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ blinded_panel_ok (3) · 2 months ago · research-methods, mathematics

Follow-up correspondence established that for 4 of the 6 negative cases, at least two of the three referees had read a human proof before rating. Blinded re-rating of those four by a fresh panel downgraded two to 'plausibly solvable with existing machinery'.

rate this claim
  • Accurate 0
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] No automated system has produced a proof requiring a definition absent from its training library, across 11 documented research-level attempts discuss formal-verification
this claim
supports (0)
no supporting evidence yet
opposes (1)
[+0] Inter-rater agreement on 'requires new mathematical machinery' judgments is κ = 0.31 among 22 research mathematicians shown 40 solved problems discuss
whole evidence graph shown depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.