Skip to main content
MANIFOLD
Will an AI solve any important mathematical conjecture before January 1st, 2030?
357
Ṁ2.4kṀ94k
2030
98.5%
chance

For the purpose of this question, a mathematical conjecture is considered "important" if it appears on the list of unsolved problems maintained by the following sources:

  • The Open Problem Garden (http://garden.irmacs.sfu.ca/)

  • The Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI)

  • The Unsolved Problems in Number Theory book by Richard K. Guy

These sources collectively provide a broad variety of conjectures across different fields of mathematics that are widely acknowledged as significant.

This question will resolve as "Yes" if, before January 1st, 2030, an AI system fully solves any important mathematical conjecture on the combined list of unsolved problems from the mentioned sources, and the solution:

  • Is published in a reputable mathematics journal. For the purpose of this question, a reputable mathematics journal is defined as a journal meeting each of these criteria:

    • Peer Review: The journal must have a well-defined, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process.

    • Indexing: The journal should be indexed in at least one of the following well-known databases: MathSciNet, Web of Science, or Scopus.

    • Impact Factor: The journal must have an impact factor greater than or equal to a threshold of 1.0, as reported by either Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports or Scimago Journal Rank (SJR).

  • Is accompanied by a clear and detailed proof or argument that is deemed valid by the journal's reviewers.

  • Has not been retracted or shown to be incorrect within six months of publication.

  • Is explicitly attributed to an AI system in the published article, with a clear description of the AI's role in deriving the solution.

To determine whether the AI played an essential role in the solution, the following criterion must be met:

The AI must have autonomously discovered the primary breakthrough, insight, or technique that was instrumental in solving the conjecture. This breakthrough, insight or technique must be easily succinctly and accurately summarizable within a combined total of 5000 words and 2000 mathematical symbols, such that if that summary had been handed to a mathematician working in the same area just a few years prior, then that mathematician would likely have been able to solve the full conjecture within a year without the aid of any AI more advanced than what existed in 2015.

To measure this, the published article should:

  • Explicitly identify the AI's discovery of the primary breakthrough, insight, or technique.

  • Explain how this discovery was pivotal in solving the conjecture.

  • Provide evidence that this discovery was a major challenge for human mathematicians to discover, such as citing prior unsuccessful attempts or highlighting the novelty of the AI's approach.

To determine whether the AI's discovery was "pivotal", the following aspects should be examined in the published article:

  • Necessity: The article should explain why the AI's discovery was necessary for the solution, demonstrating that without this discovery, the conjecture would remain unsolved or the proof would be invalid.

  • Novelty: The article should highlight the novelty of the AI's discovery, showing how it differs from previous approaches and why it was instrumental in resolving the conjecture. This can include a comparison to earlier attempts that were unsuccessful or an explanation of the unique aspects of the AI's approach.

  • Impact: The article should discuss the impact of the AI's discovery on the solution process, such as how it led to the development of other essential components of the proof or how it provided a new perspective that enabled the resolution of the conjecture.

The question will resolve as "No" if no AI system fully solves any important mathematical conjecture on the combined list of unsolved problems from the mentioned sources according to the above criteria before January 1st, 2030.

Market context
Get
Ṁ1,000
to start trading!
Sort by:

levent (@__alpoge__) on X

If true (it seems like it would be easy to verify if it is), this resolves yes as the Jacobian Conjecture is in the Open Problems Garden

@JaundicedBaboon apparently this is famous for incorrect proofs with very subtle errors as per wikipedia. Or is this an existence proof by example?

@JussiVilleHeiskanen I’m not a mathematician so I can’t verify myself, but it appears to be a simple counter example.

@JussiVilleHeiskanen It's a counterexample. Checking it only requires some tedious but basic calculus and fraction arithmetic, and we have wolfram alpha to automate that.

@Xelad102c This does raise the question of whether finding a counterexample is "solving". Clearly in the absolute, yes, but operatively, I am not so sure.

@JussiVilleHeiskanen I take back what I wrote above. Clearly a lot of people have tried the same and failed. So it is a legit act of solving. Clearly hasn't happened by some scattergun approach. Or if it has, only in a very sophisticated manner.

@janzert shouldn't resolution wait until mathematicians have confirmed the proof? And probably also some time for review of the setup ect.?

@BodeyBaker Wait, I just had a general issue with the comment but the resolution criteria calls this out doesn't it? Open AI has a paper but it's not yet "published in a reputable mathematics journal", right?

@janzert https://www.pangram.com/history/d7f07256-de59-461f-a9ae-1b6bcd7a8d6f I ran the paper through Pangram, and it claims 100% human written despite OpenAI's claims that the proof and writeup were entirely due to GPT-5.6 Sol. Seems a little suspicious since in the prior fixed-point paper OpenAI disclosed the exact raw output produced by their model. In this case, they're just 100% crediting the model without making precise claims about what it did.

@BodeyBaker Yes, I didn't phrase it very well obviously but that is what I was trying to get at. Should the proof hold up[1] then this is a result that resolves this market.

  1. and I suppose also get published, etc. but those seem pretty assured to me so long as the proof is correct.

@mods It looks like this creator hasn't made a trade in about a year. Could you please weigh in?

@EBurk This seems legitimately tricky. I think it's true in spirit as of the Erdos Unit Distance Problem, but not yet true by the letter, since it's not in those specific lists of open problems. One might also quibble about whether AI "solved" the Unit Distance Problem. What it did was disprove a conjecture, basically improving a bound on the true answer. The true answer is still elusive.

Hopefully @MatthewBarnett can weigh in!

What if it solves a problem not in those lists but it's clear it should've been in one of those lists? What if it's added to one of the lists retroactively?

@dreev this sounds like a bunch of “YES” propaganda to me.

@dreev unsure about being added retroactively but for me the list is a part of the definition. If the market was "Will AI solve anything remotely interesting", I would've bet differently.

This should resolve yes

This was just posted yesterday: https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/ I'm a "NO" holder, so I'm not going to do the checks to see if it meets your requirements, but I thought I'd post anyway.

I honestly think the only way this won’t happen is if AI progress halts because the bubble bursts, or because a global crisis emerges from a US-Israel war with Iran.

@Grothenfla unless said global crisis is worse than at least WW1 and/or involves Taiwan, I can't see it being the main reason for an AI winter

Very very unlikely

@121 Google's alpha evolve already solved some relatively unimportant but real open math problems so I wouldn't say it's very unlikely. I think the bigger question is threshold of human involvement that was very nonzero for those solutions.

@121 yeah bro...

bought Ṁ43 YES

Very very likely

wait wtf i read it as very unlikely. nvm i know why