arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.29401

Explanations, Prompts, and Formalizations: Arguments for New Norms in LLM-Enabled Mathematical Research

Axel Boldt
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As several mathematical conjectures have recently been settled using large language models (LLMs), the mathematical community has formulated norms and recommendations regarding the publishing of such results. These norms do not cover the disclosure of the prompts and precise software setup used to obtain those results, nor do they require that results be formalized in a manner that allows for machine verification. I argue that both of these are essential. In addition, since LLM-obtained results may be hard to understand, human authors have the responsibility to invent intuitive explanations.

Explore related subjects

math.HOcs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Axel Boldt. 2026-08-29. Explanations, Prompts, and Formalizations: Arguments for New Norms in LLM-Enabled Mathematical Research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29401

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.LG subjectmath.HO subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

On systematicity of linear function-correcting codes

The standard formulation of function-correcting codes uses systematic encodings. We study the redundancy cost of this constraint when both the prescribed function and the encoding are linear. We introduce the function-separation distance and show that several classical unequal error protection parameters are special cases. For linear functions and encodings, this distance is the first relative generalized Hamming weight of the code relative to the encoded kernel. We formulate free and systematic linear separation problems. We prove that the optimal free redundancy depends only on the rank of the function, and determine the optimal systematic redundancy for prescribed separations $d\leq3$.

cs.IT↗
arXiv2026

The Prime Clockwork: A Dynamic Representation of Modular and Multiplicative Arithmetic

The way numbers are represented strongly influences which arithmetic structures are easy to see. The \emph{prime clockwork} is a recursively growing discrete dynamical system: a list of autonomous two-hand clocks driven by one common $+1$ signal. No primes or primality labels are supplied. Starting empty, the process appends a clock of period $n$ whenever none already present rings; the primes are generated internally as its growth times. For each installed prime $p$, the seconds reading $R_p$ advances through $0,\ldots,p-1$, and each return to zero increments the minutes reading $M_p$, which counts completed $p$-cycles. The hands use only increment, comparison, reset, and carry, without explicit \texttt{mod} or \texttt{div} operations. At time $n$, $n=pM_p(n)+R_p(n)$. The valuation readout $V_p(n)=ν_p(n)$ is generated locally: it is zero when the seconds counter is non-zero (silent state) and otherwise (when the p-clock rings) one plus the earlier valuation addressed by the current minutes reading. The valuation vector gives the integer in unique prime-factorized form. Its coordinates add and subtract under multiplication and division, representing every positive rational uniquely; divisibility becomes weak componentwise order, and unique factorization is natural in this representation. Finite seconds arrays form Cartesian-product state spaces whose common orbit visits every joint state once before repeating; this \emph{grand cycle} is the order-sensitive dynamical counterpart of the Chinese remainder theorem. The same coordinates expose gcd, lcm, perfect powers, Bézout's identity, and Euler's totient. Rational valuation levels reach certain positive algebraic irrationalities, but not algebraic numbers in general.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Fundamental Mathematics in the Age of AI -- The Residue, the Journey, and the Ecology

Large language models have begun refuting long-standing conjectures and solving long-open problems. The introspection this has prompted about the future of mathematical discovery is well under way, and the anxiety accompanying it legitimate -- but both, we claim, are attached to the wrong loss. What machines now produce is the countable part of mathematics -- theorems, proofs, refutations -- which was always the work's residue, not its product. The distinction is old, and not economic: a result can be taken in its finished essence, or in the operations that engendered it. The product is human understanding: not a stock of results but a collective, hard-won way of deciphering the world and acting upon it. The two are arcs of a single loop: understanding tells us where to look; looking produces the residue; and taking it up again, one journey at a time, rebuilds shared understanding. Machines are strong on the countable arc, absent from the one that feeds it. The peril is to leave the loop open. AI did not create the confusion between residue and product; it has called a bluff long on the books, driving the cost of the residue towards zero and making the scarce thing visible at last. A new instrument makes a new way of working before it makes a new result. The pressing questions are therefore institutional: who can check an announced result, whoever announces it; what work and training become for the next generation of researchers; and whether the one thing that cannot be mass-produced -- the journey that nourishes a shared understanding -- continues to be funded. Mathematics, we argue, is uniquely placed among the sciences on the first -- a proof answers to no one's permission -- and uniquely exposed on the other two: teaching cannot go on as before, and no collective position yet exists; and the journey has never had a price our institutions knew how to pay. The decision is ours.

math.HO↗