Good eye! The space in "No. 12" would traditionally get a thin space [0] in professionally typeset documents, which is smaller than the standard space used for inter-word and inter-sentence spacing.
The solution here is to fix the sample text itself to use U+202F (NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE,  ). As opposed to the standard width no-break space it currently has for "No. 12" and "Fig. 7".
Not quite. A "thin space" is thinner than an ordinary interword space, which in turn is thinner (or at least less stretchy) than an intersentence space. The space in "No. 12" or "Fig. 7" or "Mr. Jones" or "cf. page 5" is by definition an interword space! The problem is that HTML renderers tend to prefer to set it as an intersentence space instead, because they think "." always indicates the end of a sentence. Using can help; that's like "~" in TeX. TeX also supports a breaking-but-never-intersentence-sized space via "\ " (backslash space), which is what you'd probably want to use in "cf.\ page~5." AFAIK, HTML/Unicode have no equivalent of that.
The "standard" method would be to double space after the end of a sentence. This is how "filling" paragraphs works in org-mode to avoid breaking a line in the middle of an abbreviation.
It isn't my pension, and if it was my pension the major issue would be that I was relying on people I think are untrustable with money to fund my retirement. That is one of those ideas so strategically bad that no tactical success or failure matters. I personally wouldn't choose to let more than a fraction of my money get pushed into that vortex. It looks like a disaster waiting to happen (hopefully I'm wrong and everyone goes home happy).
As a rule of thumb in life, if someone is managing your money then you should by and large agree with their judgement of the markets.
> But as always, the methodology is buried: how many open problems were tried until they found a success?
Not only that, but they have like 500 world-leading experts in mathematics and IMO alumni, so how do we know one of the agents wasn't hardcoded to return a proof that the mathematicians had found?
I'm a mathematician/graph theorist, and I've tried ChatGPT 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and now 5.6 on a bunch of simple-ish open problems, and I've never gotten a solution.
I’ve had a similar experience in physics. Excellent domain knowledge and semantic search, but the intellectual sparkle and reasoning just isn’t there and it still often throws out a lot of wrong ideas. It is very useful for coding.
But there is a discrepancy between (the implication behind) these reports and how I subjectively feel talking to LLMs. Granted, I don’t have access to whatever cutting edge model is out there for as many credits, but I also don’t feel like I’m talking to an IMO silver medallist.
i think most things can be automated, but not everything
i think AI will just replace jobs with new jobs, and humans will continue with open-ended goal setting, and probably jobs where being human is necessary: responsibility and authenticity, so judges, politics, leaders, chefs, etc.
so in a way, the above commenter was correct, anything a programmer can automate, AI can do
Reminds me of crypto. A lotta tokens. A lotta gambling. Very little supplanting of crypto from fiat. Very few use-cases that revolutionize society, etc.
There's really no good proof system mature enough to do advanced graph theory. The leading library in Lean is Graphlib, and it's really not ready for research level theorems.
Claude estimates that tool use / input tokens might add 10-15% on top of that depending on exactly how the model went about the task.
Edit: better tok/s estimate buckets based on GPT 5.5 actual speeds since I couldn't find real benchmarks on 5.6 published anywhere. Also account for Sol Fast pricing.
> apparently that is just Sol being Sol on fast mode, not 750 tps. :x O.o
> This is real and it is not 750 TPS. Anyone with 5.6 Sol Ultra on fast mode can reproduce this! It’s all GUI interactions with CUA. No MCP or bpy needed.
+1 to Perlin.
reply