this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
333 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
88803 readers
3735 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Making things very obscured is not a proof.
The guy is politely saying it’s nonsense
I don't think that's what's being said. More like the complexities of the solution are taking a while to understand because it is a complex solution using complex math. Even the smartest people in their fields can't always look at a solution and at a glance understand everything without truly digesting what they're seeing.
Not sure if "really complicated" or "√-1"
That is not at all what he just said
it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted.
Post here when he and others say it’s correct
It sounds more like when AI won in Go for the first time. People were looking at the game and saying "humans don't play like that, we don't understand those moves".
Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion?
I think it's more that he's saying "interesting approach, but not verified yet."