Dismissing something because you think it’s AI is just a shortcut for not having to evaluate it. If the argument’s weak, say why — guessing the author isn’t analysis.
There is no obligation for others to evaluate the claims. The line quoted by the parent suggests that it was written by a mathematical crank. I doubt AI would make such an unecessary statement. This is not how serious mathematicians write.
> 33 pages. 100+ references. Full proofs. Self‑contained. A new mathematical object — and the foundation of the Carlo universe.
AI?
Dismissing something because you think it’s AI is just a shortcut for not having to evaluate it. If the argument’s weak, say why — guessing the author isn’t analysis.
There is no obligation for others to evaluate the claims. The line quoted by the parent suggests that it was written by a mathematical crank. I doubt AI would make such an unecessary statement. This is not how serious mathematicians write.
I can't wait to read more about the Big Daddy Engine
> Capabilities of the Big Daddy Engine include: forcing spacetime to emerge generating matter from contradictions deriving constants of nature
Repeating the capabilities like a punchline only works if you can explain why they’re wrong. Otherwise you’re just reading aloud
[flagged]
Scrolling through this and figured I’d leave a note, curious what people end up saying about it.
This actually makes sense though
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]