Bartosz Naskręcki on Twitter / X

Terence Tao (@tao@mathstodon.xyz)

In traditional mathematics (or "Math 1.0"), a breakthrough proof of a long-standing open conjecture generates a large amount of subsequent activity and excitement in the field. The authors of the proof are invited to give many talks, and meet with other experts in the area. Workshops are set up to discuss the proof, as well as other recent developments. As a result, new connections and collaborations are formed, followup problems are shared, and other mathematicians (both junior and senior) are attracted to the field (including in some cases the authors themselves, if they initially came from a different subject). As a result of all this activity, the proofs naturally become digested, streamlined, placed in context with other results in the field, and ultimately become part of the textbooks and lecture notes for the next generation of mathematicians in the field. (1/4)

Tony Feng on Twitter / X

I am a mathematician but I avoided commenting on this because the problems are (far) outside my domain. Even if I sat down to read the technical details (which I have not), it would be hard to appreciate the context of prior work, etc. But I've gotten enough sense of things… https://t.co/VZzosBYFto— Tony Feng (@tonylfeng) August 5, 2026

If math is more than proof, we need to better celebrate the rest of it

[This is a guest post by Grant Sanderson. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] A sentiment echoing throughout the mathematics communit…

Talia Ringer 🕊🪬 on Twitter / X

Poured my heart and soul into advocating for formal proof with AI assistance in a mathematical setting because of the large collaborations I thought it could empower. (1/3)— Talia Ringer 🕊🪬 (@TaliaRinger) September 10, 2026

Mathematics with large language models as provers and verifiers

During 2024 and 2025 the discussion about the theorem-proving capabilities of large language models started reporting interesting success stories, mostly to do with difficult exercises (such as problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad), but also with conjectures [Feldman & Karbasi, arXiv:2509.18383v1] formulated for the purpose of verifying whether the artificial intelligence could prove it. In this paper we report a theorem proving feat achieved by ChatGPT by using a protocol involving different prover and verifier instances of the gpt-5 model working collaboratively. To make sure that the produced proofs do not suffer from hallucinations, the final proof is formally verified by the lean proof assistant, and the conformance of premises and conclusion of the lean code is verified by a human. Our methodology is by no means complete or exact. It was nonetheless able to solve five out of six 2025 IMO problems, and close about a third of the sixty-six number theory conjectures in [Cohen, Journal of Integer Sequences, 2025].

Mathematics with large language models as provers and verifiers

During 2024 and 2025 the discussion about the theorem-proving capabilities of large language models started reporting interesting success stories, mostly to do with difficult exercises (such as problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad), but also with conjectures [Feldman & Karbasi, arXiv:2509.18383v1] formulated for the purpose of verifying whether the artificial intelligence could prove it. In this paper we report a theorem proving feat achieved by ChatGPT by using a protocol involving different prover and verifier instances of the gpt-5 model working collaboratively. To make sure that the produced proofs do not suffer from hallucinations, the final proof is formally verified by the lean proof assistant, and the conformance of premises and conclusion of the lean code is verified by a human. Our methodology is by no means complete or exact. It was nonetheless able to solve five out of six 2025 IMO problems, and close about a third of the sixty-six number theory conjectures in [Cohen, Journal of Integer Sequences, 2025].

The Technological Turn in Mathematics

Quickly evolving technologies, such as Interactive Theorem Provers (ITPs), Automated Theorem Provers (ATPs), and Large Language Models (LLMs), all falling under the general heading 'AI for mathematics,' are transforming mathematical practice in profound ways. This chapter explores the implications of these innovations, focusing on their impact on how mathematical knowledge is created and shared. It also discusses how they are reshaping the social dimension of mathematics, altering collaboration dynamics, trust relationships, and the collective production of knowledge. For instance, tools like ITPs facilitate large-scale collaborations and make new types of teamwork possible, where trust is not a necessary ingredient. ITPs also help us mitigate our human fallibility, yet they raise questions about the nature of formalization and the relationship between traditional and formal mathematics. Technologies such as LLMs are reshaping the division of epistemic labour between humans and machines and urge philosophers of mathematics to ask questions about the value of their work.

Michael Truell on Twitter / X

We believe Cursor discovered a novel solution to Problem Six of the First Proof challenge, a set of math research problems that approximate the work of Stanford, MIT, Berkeley academics. Cursor's solution yields stronger results than the official, human-written solution.…— Michael Truell (@mntruell) March 3, 2026

Terence Tao: AI companies are harming mathematics | New Scientist

AI firms are making new mathematical discoveries at a rapid pace, but not sticking around to help unpick the new proofs. That is not the way to advance our understanding, says mathematician Terence Tao

Ale×ey on Twitter / X

Funniest possible outcome of new ai math proofs publications would be that explosive progress cannot be delivered through individual genius and singular products but only through contextualized human understanding and embedding of knowledge.— Ale×ey (@EqualParallel) October 7, 2026

Terence Tao – Kepler, Newton, and the true nature of mathematical discovery

“And what those stories teach us about how AI will revolutionize math”

Daron Acemoglu on Twitter / X

I recommend Columbia mathematician Michael Harris’s wide-ranging, informative and thought-provoking essay in Boston Review on AI and mathematics:https://t.co/txwAd8ri4xHarris rightly worries about the possible negative effects of AI-generated proofs and mathematics on…— Daron Acemoglu (@DAcemogluMIT) June 16, 2026

The Dark Night of Mathematics

What are we really doing?

Thomas Wolf on Twitter / X

wtf is this way to handle mathematicians work and scientific communicationTLDR: Leven and Tristan worked over several months on one of the Millenium Prize Problems with various AIs to reach final interesting results. OpenAI apparently heard about it in the last days and… https://t.co/zNozwkFcFO pic.twitter.com/XcefJ17AQe— Thomas Wolf (@Thom_Wolf) September 8, 2026

The End of Mathematics — Daniel Litt

I'm currently returning to Toronto from a summit on the future of mathematics, at OpenAI. Sebastian Bubeck asked me to talk a bit about the future we'd all like to avoid, where humans are mathematically disempowered. Jacob Tsimerman advised us to try to prioritize detail over correctness, and I have no doubt that I succeeded in deprioritizing correctness.