Timeline for What advantage humans have over computers in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2021 at 9:27 | comment | added | Konstantinos Gaitanas | @WlodAA What is so funny? | |
| Aug 29, 2021 at 7:22 | comment | added | Wlod AA | @KonstantinosGaitanas "logic is the greatest thing humans have" -- ha, ha, ha! | |
| Aug 29, 2021 at 1:58 | comment | added | KConrad | That was a prescient comment about not killing ourselves with an "impossible" virus... | |
| Mar 9, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Konstantinos Gaitanas | Of course none wants to believe that computers will be better than humans in mathematics because logic is the greatest thing humans have. We did accept that a machine can go faster than a horse because who cares about speed, we already knew that we were not the fastest species in earth. It sounds surprisingly strange just to accept that computers will beat us in science. Maybe some day this will happen, maybe not. But it is very human to feel strange when we create something which can be better than us in logic. So, I disagree with the part that we are short sighted etc. | |
| Nov 5, 2017 at 11:27 | comment | added | yters | Chaitin's incompleteness theorem puts a strict limit on how complex a proof AI can come up with. | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 0:25 | comment | added | Michael | Well, can you prove that futuristic assertion, with or without computer aid? | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 21:48 | comment | added | GMB | I'm not sure if "brain-computer interfaces" is meant to imply actual neural circuitry (rather than e.g. a souped-up version of Wolfram Alpha), but by any reasonable guess that technology is WAY further out than an algorithm that is good at discovering proofs. We still have a very limited understanding of which parts of the brain perform which tasks, let alone how to interface with them. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 18:47 | comment | added | Robert Israel | @Alan We know, for example, that there will be some Diophantine equations for which it will not be possible to tell whether they have solutions. Of course we don't know which particular ones. | |
| Mar 16, 2016 at 7:18 | comment | added | Alan | @RobertIsrael do we know which questions in maths will be left unanswered? I don't see why humans in the future cannot ask the same questions; as I see it, humans will evolve and incoporate the machines within them, like cyborgs or whatever the imagination will tell us that it's possible. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 23:07 | comment | added | Robert Israel | @Alan Thanks to Gödel, we know that there are mathematical questions that will be left unanswered. But that's not particularly relevant to this discussion: will it be machines or humans answering (and asking) the questions? | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 22:19 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | @Dominic: It's really impossible to know. The type of well-structured self-contained problems that appear in the IMO are an easier target than mathematics-in-the-wild though. | |
| Mar 15, 2016 at 15:29 | comment | added | Dominic van der Zypen | Any guesses on when there will be a serious contender called "AlphaMath" or something for the International Math Olympiad? I'll put in 2030. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 15:33 | history | edited | user9072 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed tagential question as the information was received and I do not think it need to be preserved there
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 18:06 | comment | added | Alan | Even if computers become better at solving mathematical problems, there are some questions that will always be left unanswered (perhaps not mathematical ones). | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 11:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Mar 13, 2016 at 11:26 | history | edited | Brendan McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 573 characters in body
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:28 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | I guess so, but it's nothing to do with exponential growth. There is absolutely no reason why mathematics is the sole domain of human brains, so over the long term it won't be. I'm assuming we won't kill ourselves with a virus that was "impossible" to create or do some other "impossible" thing that halts technological progress forever. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:13 | comment | added | joro | Do you mean something like "technological singularity"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 9:08 | history | answered | Brendan McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |