I care. I was a math student in my undergrad when I try to solve a particular problem on paths, in the end it uses a path version of cycle double cover conjecture (which was solved in the 90s).
okey just did some investigation. ~/.config/herdr/herdr.sock JSON-RPC API so we can avoid herdr UI. In fact herdr's TUI is using it too.
So basically you can write your own tool to make it work (vibe it with AI if you want)
Something like this would be great. It seems what one really need is just persistent terminal session. So this thing probably can be built on top of zmc with a few scripts.
Herdr did a lot of things really well.
It have a great landing page where you can see and interact, and that really made me try it, and a few of my friend was also captured and immediately understood what it is for. I basically do everything remote, never on my own machine.
Once I tried it, I can never go back. It is so simple and worked exactly as I thought how it should work.
I would say it is just a modern version of tmux but really thought about user experience of more novice users. For people who come from the mouse world, moving to this is quite seamless.
Also, coming to the comments, I would think maybe `zellij` would also work well. Or use `zmc` and build something on top. `zmc` is great, as the then the tab/window management can be handled by the desktop or TUI, depend on what someone want to use.
You say hard rules can cause A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. Is it because hard rules itself can have cycles, or because hard rule and scores together causing cycles? What does tie-breaker even mean here, how does it change the ordering?
Let's ignore tie-breaker. Is it the following abstract problem?
Given a partial order A (the hard rules) and a total order B (the scores). Find a total order C that is an linear extension of A and "agrees" with B the most.
I feel if phrase this way, then there is probably some faster greedy approximation of w/e "agrees" you are thinking about, because w/e you are doing here is also just an approximation of w/e true best you are thinking.
Feels like one can just copy the UI and use it for forgejo. It would get something similar very quickly, and avoid handling all the difficult stuff I guess.
I'm a researcher working in theoretical computer science.
Chatgpt found a counterexample of some conjecture I've been trying for 2 years. Also, it one shot many problems I've worked on. It also improved some of my work greatly.
I feel quite useless in the sheer brutal proof writing, counterexample generating skill chatgpt is demonstrating, and wonder what would be the future of my profession.
This is monotone min-plus, so you can do it with even better running time than what you listed (which is just min-plus).
Also, if all numbers are at most k, you can even get running time related to k too, replacing n with k is obviously possible, but more can be done too. I feel this might be likely in practice where k might be small?
I'm testing it and seems to be very broken, typing things around and things jumps everywhere.
I was trying to create something like this too, because I need something that also work for mathematical writing. Let me push a version on github and update, it fixes a lot of issues.
Unfortunately it works on my own version of markdown, which is a subset of pandoc markdown, but I think one can get claude to update the parser to work for other things.
I’m really interested in AI4MATH, as I believe it will eventually replace me.
I'm working on a mathematical knowledge base software.
It's kinda like a local Github for math. In fact the backend is actually a Forgejo instance, I'm building a frontend for human and also a harness for agents that automatically consumes the knowledge base and expand on it. I realized the Issue/PR/review workflow works well for maintaining knowledge base too.
The motivation is actually help mathematicians/me TODAY to able to do math together with human/AI.
The knowledge base keeps mathematical writing as plain Markdown, but adds stable IDs, backlinks, search, draft changes, review, approvals, and merge.
The agent side can read the same pages, follow the same references, propose edits, and go through the same review process as a human.
I’m not using formalization here. Everything is still natural-language proofs. The practical reason is that many areas I care about are not easy to formalize yet because it is not in mathlib.
I see this as a transition project: useful before autoformalization really works well, and maybe still useful afterward as the place where humans and agents organize exploration.
Many LaTeX tricks only get passed down from advisors to students, or from collaborators to collaborators. Rarely someone would look for how to improve their typesetting when all they want is to quickly communicate content.
It be nice if content and typesetting can be completely separated, where I just write content, and something (LaTeX, AI, some manual typesetter) does all the typesetting.
Also, should I be the one controlling how the reader consume my content? Maybe the reader prefers another font? Or the reader is viewing in a kindle so pdf page size should be different?
This would be impossible unless the reader have my LaTeX source code and compile it themselves. But it is super simple for epub, or html webpage (by modifying the css).
Professor at UESTC, works on theoretical computer science and operations research.
Research interests: algorithms, combinatorial optimization, computational geometry and problem-solving in general.