Timeline for Why is the current math community not contributing to machine learning much? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2019 at 22:00 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 23, 2019 at 1:27 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 17:22 | history | closed |
arsmath Michael Albanese Alexey Ustinov András Bátkai Wolfgang |
Opinion-based | |
| Aug 26, 2016 at 12:48 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 26, 2016 at 17:22 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2016 at 9:15 | answer | added | coudy | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 21:08 | answer | added | kerzol | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 18:52 | history | reopened |
Joseph O'Rourke Wolfgang joro R W Gil Kalai |
||
| Aug 22, 2016 at 18:19 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I would just like to say that within mathematics I have, since the days when I was a PhD student, seen several variants of this question along the lines of "why is the current math community not contributing much to X", where X is always some thing that is clearly The Way To The Radiant Future, that Boring and Timid People are afraid will sweep them away into the dustbin of history. As someone who works in a department that has people interested in ML, I remain to be convinced that the OP's phrasing of his or her own question differs substantively from the cases I have just mentioned | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 1:24 | vote | accept | Math.StackExchange | ||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 22:02 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | Actually, it's probably not realistic for me to be thinking of humans vs computers in the way that my previous comment assumes, as @Math.StackExchange indicates. I suspect it's very likely that in a few hundred years, a thousand at most, this dichotomy of people and computers will be analogous to life on Earth before multicellular organisms developed. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 18:32 | comment | added | Math.StackExchange | @DaveLRenfro Although this kind of question tends to be closed, I hope mine would not be, since the question I quoted from was eventually reopened. Proofs of many theorems are incomprehensible for vast majority of humans, so it wouldn't matter whether only machines or a few mathematicians can understand a proof. Also, Brendan McKay mentioned that humans can incorporate AI to themselves to enhance their intelligence, so such problems may not matter. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 16:53 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | For what its worth, when I read discussions on the topic of computers doing mathematics in the future, my imagination tends to drift into thoughts like the following: Suppose, 200 years from now, the Riemann hypothesis is finally proved, but the proof is made by a nucleonic-matter quantum computer-entity and requires the reader of the proof to have an intuitive grasp of expressions involving 15 quantifier alterations and to be able to visualize 6-dimensional explanatory diagrams. Other similar computer-entities claim to verify the proof, but no human can make heads or tails of the proof. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 16:50 | comment | added | Dave L Renfro | Marginally related (both both were closed): Will computers one day start creating and proving math for us? and Is a proof still valid if only the writer understands it? | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 15:39 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 16:36 | |||||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 13:32 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 12:22 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | You have a point there. By the way, I do work in a tax office :-) | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 10:47 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @SylvainJULIEN If the day comes when computers can replace mathematicians, I am quite sure they will be able to replace clerks in banks and tax offices, too. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 7:49 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Nothing personal against @SylvainJULIEN but I would just like to place a comment here, disagreeing with the opinion/sentiment/joke in his comment above. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 7:18 | history | closed |
Franz Lemmermeyer Carlo Beenakker Daniel Loughran abx Joseph Van Name |
Opinion-based | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 7:08 | comment | added | VictorZurkowski | What is Mathematics? If one tries to define Mathematics in terms of an object of study, you end up having to make include so many exceptions to the rule that it renders the definiton useless. If current ML leads to "classical" Mathematics developments, I posit that ML is doing (non-classical ?) Mathematics. There are opportunities to show that what ML does fits within standard Mathematics. We can include ML examples in Calculus and Linear Algebra to leverage the connections. Of course, some areas of Mathematics might never cross paths with AI or ML, but that is true in many other cases. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 6:40 | answer | added | Gil Kalai | timeline score: 42 | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 6:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 7:22 | |||||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 5:49 | comment | added | Sylvain JULIEN | I guess they don't want to lose their job. Studying hard for so many years to finally see a computer do the same job faster and better and end up working in a bank or a tax office may not be that funny. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 5:40 | history | asked | Math.StackExchange | CC BY-SA 3.0 |