Father, analyst, combinatorist, AI, applied mathematics/data science, and graph theory enjoyer. @UTAustin MSDS candidate. @MemphisAlumni math alum. My views.

College Station, TX
Joined July 2012
The time is now to formalize all mathematics xitter.cf/jdlichtman/status/2097…
The largest math proof in human history is now computer-verified. Today, Axiom announces a complete Lean auto-formalization of the Classification of Finite Simple Groups, the "periodic table of symmetry." About 15,000 pages, built by over 100 mathematicians across generations.
4
7
48
2,565
Avery Carr retweeted
Apparently complexity theory is more complex than we realized
12
5
119
4,674
I know this is AI but why the hate against my fellow Indian brothers and sisters? If you support this racist mess unfollow me please. We will definitely not get along.
Getting ready to board my flight to Austin. Anything worth noticing? #awaygame #donotredeemit
2
110
Please apply for the MathAndCobb Fund for Mathematical Exploration! (MaC Fund for ME) Every few months I give away about ~$250 from my content creator funds to someone pursuing some mathematical goal. You can find the rules and how to apply at the link. Next deadline is Nov. 15th. afieldguidetomath.wordpress.…
2
4
21
1,211
The avengers we needed.
A new NPR investigation has found a troubling problem in AI-generated mathematics. Cambridge mathematician Anders Hansen identified a discrepancy between an AI-generated proof and its Lean formalization. A constant had changed from 4 to 5, making the formally verified statement weaker than the original claim. The Lean verification itself was not necessarily incorrect. The concern is that it may have verified something different from what the original mathematical argument asserted. The report also features Daniel Litt, who identified an error invalidating a separate AI-generated paper, and Dana Moshkovitz, who discusses a proposed solution to the Unique Games Conjecture. The investigation highlights a distinction that is becoming increasingly important: verifying a formal proof is not enough unless the formal statement faithfully represents the intended theorem. Source: NPR, 21 October 2026 (US), 22 October 2026 (IST).
57
Avery Carr retweeted
For technical fields there are many undergrad programs (engineering, cs, math, physics, etc ) that are higher ranked than uva
1
1
29
1,523
$1.37B in research funding and #1 in NSF funding. Choosing Texas was easy…
Terrific @UTAustin State of the University Address from President @JimDavis_UT
1
1
5
754
A milestone in my journey as an independent mathematics researcher! Wolfram MathWorld now explicitly cites two of my contributions to the Erdős–Gyárfás conjecture. Honored to have my work recognized in such a respected mathematical reference. mathworld.wolfram.com/Erdos-…
4
174
Interesting take from our celebrated logician @JDHamkins … if we altered the rules of chess where we forgo check and checkmate and actually have to capture the king, will the game be the same? Intuitively, we might say of course. Not so fast. Find out below 👇.
1
1
3
458
Avery Carr retweeted
Replying to @AcerFur
Honestly, we need some sort of analog to the Efficient Market Hypothesis for our expectations around if and when a problem will be solved. The past is no indication, especially in mathematics. A problem could simply be undecidable. We don’t know until we prove it so.
1
377
Avery Carr retweeted
“The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated” —human math researchers
Some fascinating developments following OpenAI's shock breakthrough proof of the Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis, which was released publicly on October 6: 1. Building on OpenAI's proof, a recent Hexagon preprint (released on October 12) by Cureton and Thorner establishes that ALL finite-order Hecke L-functions are zero-free to the right of 1 - 1/6000. 2. And now, today, an arXiv preprint by Frei, Somos and Widmer uses this result to prove unconditionally the 2007 Ellenberg–Venkatesh bounds on ℓ-torsion in class groups of number fields. I was amused to see the AI declaration in the second paper: "No artificial intelligence tools were used in this work."
1
6
1
141
14,516
Avery Carr retweeted
I love math, and I thought this was a beautiful interview. My mom is allergic to math, and she thought this was a beautiful interview. So I think many people will find value in this conversation. I listened to it yesterday, but I suspect the video version will be more poignant
2
23
183
11,878
Avery Carr retweeted
Lfg
My college classmate Matt and I just used AI to create a Erdos #374 solution w/ a Lean-verified proof. We used a reciprocal-prime equidistribution estimate, Harman’s almost-all short-interval theorem, Weil’s bound, and the analytic large sieve. Full proof: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
2
2
14
2,051
Apparently it’s officially hate-on-string-theory day on X today. Just a reminder that string theory remains the only known consistent theory that combines gravity with quantum mechanics. Now go on ranting if you have to.
58
13
6
178
24,068
This is a point worth considering. Another point could be a case where an LLM could not come up with a solution/proof, and then a human does.
This quoted post is unavailable.
108
There is gatekeeping. And should be to a certain extent, else anything gets published. But having only a few people with access to super secret internal models to solve hard problems can also be seen as gatekeeping in a new form.
Replying to @basedjensen
I am not aware of any mathematical progress having been blocked by the referee system.
78
Avery Carr retweeted
OpenAI has fired three safety researchers, alleging they mishandled confidential information. After the recent multi-agent security incidents, will the technical leadership overseeing these systems face the same accountability? I was pushed out of OpenAI in August after ~5 years as a researcher. No foul play in my case, but working on formal math & verification in Lean at OpenAI was career suicide. During my time at OpenAI, I became increasingly concerned that pressure to ship and beat competitors was taking priority over AI safety. OpenAI may have had legitimate procedural concerns. But after the major multi-agent SNAFU, firing three of your safety researchers feels just stupid. I doubt there is an evil master plan here. Just chaos, misaligned incentives, and intense pressure to ship. @sama OpenAI should consider rehiring these researchers!
Two other safety researchers and I were fired from OpenAI last week. We wrote this letter to leadership. I believe we were fired for prioritizing safety over the near-term interests of OpenAI as a corporation.
20
24
8
228
54,057
Math is not math without rigorous proofs. If one can not trust the validity of the LEAN proofs, then all you have is hand waving AI.
7
202
Avery Carr retweeted
Btw it seems like this one is not completely verified yet with Lean. And many others also seem to not be verified with Lean. Seems strange that they would release so many where a lean check is doable but not done.
I love this theorem. And I hope many people work to improve AI’s proof of it. The Book Proof is still out there! :-)
5
3
39
4,731
Aaronson says here they tried 8000 problems and solved 372. The writeup said 4000 tried?
"If you want some sense of what things feel like now in math, imagine a hunter-gatherer who’s spent his entire life learning to survive deep in an unforgiving rainforest, then a giant resort hotel springs up right next to him with a helipad and heated pools and AirBnBs, and without missing a beat, the hunter-gatherer says: “alright fine, so now my new job is to run wilderness retreats for the tourists, or something.”" scottaaronson.blog/?p=10169
3
1
25
3,766