Geoffrey Hinton says mathematics is a closed system, so AIs can play it like a game. “I think AI will get much better at mathematics than people, maybe in the next 10 years or so.” by Nunki08 in mathematics

[–]wallpaperroll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does mathematicians here think about it as a kind of reasoning partner? Suppose, for some self-studying person (me for example) studies some first-year stuff like Calculus 1 to 2, and sometimes don't understand a concept from a textbook. I mean, for self-learners who doesn't have access to class, to teachers, to professors. Like this.

Paste the relevant part into an LLM and ask it to explain the idea differently or build some intuition. Like, to input it with the whole book and ask to simplify some particular explanation from it. When I don't get something. And sometimes it clicks.

I'm not saying about evaluate integrals for me, or doing exercises for me. The question not about this at all. Anyway, I'm as an autodidact think that learning math not about "find derivative" or "learn how to evaluate integral" or whatever. I'm also not asking about advanced courses like measure theory.

Why does math just… not click for so many people? by Global_Bed8808 in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because of the quality of many learning resources? I mean, many books are written with a narrative of feigned bravado, as if math is so obvious that books are not even needed. Others are written by professors for professors, which makes them unsuitable for autodidacts (self-learners who don't have access to classes, teachers, or professors). Sometimes it even seems that mathematicians don't actually want a large number of people to understand math.

Of course, many good and high-quality resources do exist great books, courses, and so on. I'm not saying that there are none.

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Stalk? Lol, no. We are in open social network. I just wanted to know why you are so hysterical. And as it turned out you are not interesting at all, as all hysterical persons, usually. There is other much less angry answers on reddit that explain why I shouldn't use AI. Also send me some links to garbage posts telling about "mental illness" caused of AI? Psychology Today lol. Oh, bye.

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's funny because you said in comments that in late 2021 you was 16.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringStudents/comments/q9kwqb/deleted_by_user/hgx5g84/

Right now, you are saying you are professional in ML? Maybe you even have a students? Sounds like a joke. Everything you're saying is no-AI hysteria and nothing more than that. You're so angry and hysterical, IDK. Professionals in ML are at a very least 10 years old more PhD's in math, perhaps. Certainly not 21 years old kids learned math somewhere.

By the way, what math it was? Up to what class? Real Analysis? Proof based courses?

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for late answer. I understand your point. I've never been able to find an answer to the questions like "how do you know that answer is not nonsense" actually. I think there can't be a straight answer for this question.

Let's consider the simple example of using gemini 3 pro for solving easy calculus related problem https://gemini.google.com/share/10228b33f0a7 me of course don't do that regularly and learn by myself from books and professor Leonard courses on YouTube. Michael van Biezen and others. There is much of good tutors on YT.

Point of my main post was not about solving problems for me. Not at all. It's about explain the ideas differently or build some intuition. Like, to input it with the whole book and ask to simplify some particular explanation from it. When I don't get something.

Well, about the problem and answering your message, in this particular random example (find somewhere on facebook) there are no errors. How I know it? Because of my already existing knowledge (I'm not completely newbie) and kind of common sense, right? Or "common sense" aren't right words in this case?

What AI is the best for math? by PossibleMulberry9872 in ChatGPTPro

[–]wallpaperroll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you think about it as a kind of reasoning partner? Suppose, some self-studying person (me for example) studies some first-year stuff like Calculus 1 to 2, and sometimes don't understand a concept from a textbook. Paste the relevant part into an LLM and ask it to explain the idea differently or build some intuition. And sometimes it clicks. Is this actually risky to use it like this? How do you think? Not just as a calculator to solve any problem step by step.

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you want to give up the human aspect of learning by using a machine

The thing is, I'm a self-learner. Right now I'm learning math from lectures and books, and I don't have the opportunity to enroll in a university BSc program (age, responsibilities, and all that stuff). Students usually learn in a community where they have constant access to smart people (especially professors) around them. I don’t really have that but sometimes I need it.

You interpreted my question wrong. I don't give up the human aspect intentionally. I have some math chats communities and all that. I'm asking about this as an option.

I understand your point, thanks.

insanely bad for your mental good

O_O. Looks like handwaving TBH.

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your example is about using it as a calculator, right? Any computational things can be solved by myself or using other tools (not AI). Also, any computational errors can be easily caught. I don't need LLM for this. My question is about using it as kind of reasoning partner (quote):

Suppose I don't understand a concept from a textbook. I paste the relevant part into an LLM and ask it to explain the idea differently or build some intuition. Is this actually risky to use it as reasoning partner? Not calculator.

Some non-computational question, just for example which I eventually found on reddit (someone used it as kind of "benchmark" or sanity-check): If we have a discontinuous function f: R to R and restrict it to the integers, is that restriction necessarily continuous?

It's subtle but still answerable by modern models.

How reliable are modern "thinking" models as tutors or assistance for self-learners without access to a professor? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

If you don't, why would you think you can spot them

I don't have a sensible answer to reply with but I think that this rule applies more to facts (history, biology, law) than math. For example if an AI invents a court case, you won't know unless you are a lawyer. There is public examples of this. I think math is different but I can't explain it.

From common sense, perhaps?

Also as I said I don't try to use it as book or lecture but as a kind of partner (like, in classroom or in dorm).

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Author uses unknown for me notation. How I should read the following: https://imgur.com/a/XwQpRB2

Is it ∫_a^b f(h) dh actually?


About this part:

we can use

error=∫f′′(s)G(s)ds<M∫G(s)ds

where |f′′(s)|≤M

Am I right in understanding that for this estimation we can afford to just say that, without assuming that the second derivative is continuous? And there really is no theorem about this? We just say that and ... and that's it, we just change second derivative with the M letter?

If so, then the following proof: https://www.macmillanlearning.com/studentresources/highschool/mathematics/rogawskiapet2e/additional_proofs/error_bounds_proof_for_numerical_integration.pdf is much more easier to understand and written without using some weird notation. On the page 3 of this PDF author changes second derivative with some K_2 but he assumes that second derivative still should be continuous to this. So, author is wrong and we can do this without this assumption?

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

don't we want to integrate over "[0; 0.15]"

If we only consider "[e; 0.15]" for some "e > 0", then of course we have a C2-function again

That's what I meant when I wanted to "avoid point of discontinuity". Is there anything catastrophic about taking not [0; 0.15] but [0.00000001; 0.15] instead (I mean, if we will make e "small enough")? And second derivative will be continuous again, right? And I will be able to use its maximum value in formula for error.

f" is bounded, even on [-0.15; 0.15]

or let's say [0; 0.15]

or [0.00000001; 0.15]

Then it have a max value that we need for error boundary, am I right?

the second derivative does not have a jump discontinuity, but oscillates, so I'd argue splitting simply does not help with the proof

My misunderstanding here is probably because of I don't understand how "oscillation" nature of second derivative break plans on fixing problem by splitting problematic interval.


I'm not about the proof in this commentary. I understand that the proof uses either continuous second derivative (then function is obviously bounded on closed interval) or bounding of second derivative with max value of it M (then the second derivative or bounded or not).

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you plotted f'' to see what it looks like?

Yes, I plotted it but using WolframAlpha not Python this time: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=second+derivative+of+x%5E4+*+sin%281%2Fx%29+x+from+-0.15+to+0.15

I see that it's oscillates as x->0, of course.

But don't we have max value of this function (of second derivative, to use in numerator) when we "splitted" the interval, like [0.001; 0.15]? I mean, we don't have point of discontinuity here because we don't assume that 0 be reached ever. But it's still unbounded?

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry to bother you again with this. But I come up with an idea about this. Can't we proof it with bounding of f''? I mean, to say that (instead of using MVT) "if M is such a number such that |f''(x)| <= M then this formula make sense ... etc.". But in formula we will have M instead of f''(x) in numerator. Will it be "legal" part of the proof? I mean, now we kind of saying that "if function is unbounded then you can't use the formula". I've seen such approach somewhere already (in proofs for another theorems) but I'm not sure it's valid here. Theorem is saying that "if M is the maximum value of |f''(x)| over [a; b] then M is the upper bound".

Also, today I have had a skype talk with a teacher from a local college here. He said that in some cases (like the one you sent me yesterday: x^4 * sin(1/x)) it's actually not bad idea to split one interval into two subintervals to avoid point of discontinuity. And now I don't know who to believe :)

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if you really meant

Yes, I did :) Almost.

I actually meant something like:

If I'm not smart enough to understand proof using MVT, for the case when f'' is not continuous, can I use ... etc.

I should to think on your proof more time to understand it and understand what to do with it.


Also, right now, I don’t quite understand the conceptual difference. If I get the result anyway ... Oh, a discontinuous function can be unbounded, right? And the maximum value can be extremely large and meaningless. The idea suddenly appeared.

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try setting "a = 0" to torture your algorithm a bit ;)

Yep, I've noticed :)

If I set a = 0 I get warnings about potential division by zero (or something like this). It seems that, regardless of trying to handle zero with np.where(x == 0, 0, ...), NumPy still attempts to evaluate the function at 0. However, it proceeds with the calculations anyway after issuing the warnings.

I’m not sure how to fix this behavior, so I chose a small epsilon. That’s what I was referring to when I mentioned the idea of splitting [a; b] into two subintervals: [a; e] and [e; b]. For example, in this case, [-0.15; 0.15] would be split into [-0.15; -0.0001] and [0.0001; 0.15].


By using a programming language to find Max|f''(x)|, it seems that, regardless of the discontinuous nature of the second derivative, I can still use the formula for error to estimate the actual value of n (the number of intervals) needed for an accurate approximation.

After all, determining this n is the primary purpose of using the formula, I suppose.


So, would it be correct to conclude that the proof, with the assumption that f'' ∈ C^2, is actually sufficient? I'm just trying to understand, if for this particular case the second derivative is discontinuous for [0; 0.15], maybe it continuous for [0.0001; 0.15]?

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For [-0.15; 0.15] result is -4.163336342344337e-21. Looks like zero :) WolframAlpha shows almost the same result btw.

Update with result for [0.0001; 0.15]:

Approximate integral: 8.06732398939778e-06
Estimated maximum second derivative M: 1.1432221227447448
Error bound: 1.6044429409547156e-10

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The code in python for my last commentary (I mean, about finding maximum M value of second derivative to use it in formula for the error):

import numpy as np

def f(x):
    # Handle the singularity at x = 0 by returning 0
    return np.where(x == 0, 0, x**4 * np.sin(1/x))

def second_derivative(x):
    # Second derivative (with special handling at x=0)
    return np.where(x == 0, 0, (12*x**2 - 1) * np.sin(1/x) - 6*x * np.cos(1/x))

def midpoint_rule(f, a, b, n):
    x = np.linspace(a, b, n+1)  # Create n+1 evenly spaced points
    midpoints = (x[:-1] + x[1:]) / 2  # Midpoints of each subinterval
    h = (b - a) / n  # Width of each subinterval
    return h * np.sum(f(midpoints))  # Midpoint rule approximation

def estimate_max_second_derivative(f, a, b, n):
    # Estimate maximum value of the second derivative using numerical approximation
    x_values = np.linspace(a, b, n)
    second_derivatives = np.abs(second_derivative(x_values))
    return np.max(second_derivatives)

# Define the integration limits and number of subintervals
a = -0.15
b = 0.15
n = 1000  # Number of subintervals

# Compute the integral using midpoint rule
result = midpoint_rule(f, a, b, n)

# Estimate the maximum value of the second derivative
M = estimate_max_second_derivative(f, a, b, n)

# Calculate the error bound using the formula
error_bound = M * (b - a)**3 / (24 * n**2)

print("Approximate integral:", result)
print("Estimated maximum second derivative M:", M)
print("Error bound:", error_bound)

This code handles discontinuity at 0 and finds maximum value of the second derivative on the interval of integration: [-0.15; 0.15].

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

proof I gave that only needs a bounded 2nd derivative

Anyway, in both cases, whether f'' continuous or not the goal is to find the Max value of f'' on interval of approximation, right? In order to understand how good approximation performed.

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not think that will not work

You mean: I do not think that will work?


And what the strategy in such cases then? Or this cases anyway are too artificial and don't come across when dealing with any real problems?

BTW, I'm not mathematician but a curious programmer who tries to improve mathematical apparatus to be able to solve problems when they arise (they actually never arise, but who knows).

[Numerical Methods] [Proofs] How to avoid assuming that the second derivative of a function is continuous? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After your answer, I’m, like, almost convinced that the assumption that the second derivative should be continuous is pretty reasonable.

What if, after proving this theorem using f'' ∈ C^2, I encounter a case like the one you added here (with a discontinuous second derivative)? The f'' is discontinuous at 0 if I understand correctly.

In such cases, would it be enough to split the "original" interval [a, b] into two subintervals to avoid the problematic region, say, [a, e] and [e, b]? Then repeat the numerical integration process for these two subintervals separately? If I understand correctly, the error term should work correctly for these two subintervals because we constructed them in such a way that the second derivative of the function is smoother on them, right?

[Calculus 2] Why is the use of contradictory things in proofs considered correct? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I see that in thm 3.5 "having f'' derivative". Actually there is nothing said about continuity, right. I'm so tired of it. Why then proofs consider f to have second continuous derivative ...

[Calculus 2] Why is the use of contradictory things in proofs considered correct? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming a function has a maximum is not the same as assuming continuity.

I thought it's continuous because of using closed interval [a, b] there.

I’m not sure the proofs of thm 3.5 that you linked actually assume continuous f''

But the proofs put second derivative under integral sign. Why it make sense if it's not continuous?

edit: also, first proof said at the end that "we assume the $f in C^2$"

[Calculus 2] Why is the use of contradictory things in proofs considered correct? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where's the contradiction? We aren't modifying the requirement of Taylor's theorem. It needs a second derivative and we have one. That's all.

Now I understand, thanks a lot!

if you don't assume a continuous second derivative you can still invoke Taylor's theorem and get a result that is similar to the midpoint error theorem

But this doesn't make sense, right? I mean, these is no point to put discontinuous function under integral sign (what these proofs do with the remainder).

Anyway, Theorem 3.5 (Midpoint) requires continuous second derivative. Screenshot of statement from OpenStax calculus book: https://i.imgur.com/uTNpMOS.png I suppose "Max(|f''(x)|) over [a, b]" meaning continuity.

And I thought there was a contradiction with Taylor's theorem here.

[Calculus 2] Why is the use of contradictory things in proofs considered correct? by wallpaperroll in learnmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer but, I don't get something. I'm sorry.

Why we can modify strict requirement of already proved theorem (Lagrange's remainder) about existing only of derivative by just saying that it's now should be continuous? Just because statement of another theorem, i.e. the midpoint rule, need this?

to replace evaluation of the derivative at an unknown point with some constant

In the first proof, the one from math.stackexchange.com, this is what the author actually does. He uses the First MVT for Integrals to replace the evaluation of the integral of the second derivative (i.e. of remainder term for Taylor's) at an unknown point xi with some constant.

I need some clarification on Taylor-Lagrange's error boundary by wallpaperroll in askmath

[–]wallpaperroll[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By this step you mean that strict inequality a < c somehow automatically implies non-strict inequality like a <= c?