Yeah way more than 9, at 10km radius I see like 75% of ground pressure at center, I see the trending now, and it all comes from my radius being 4km, which is a much smaller pressure falloff (pictured is 10km radius) I did make a website about it with claudemath
tide.mino.mobi/profile/
tide.mino.mobi/profile/
June 11, 2026 at 11:35 PM
Yeah way more than 9, at 10km radius I see like 75% of ground pressure at center, I see the trending now, and it all comes from my radius being 4km, which is a much smaller pressure falloff (pictured is 10km radius) I did make a website about it with claudemath
tide.mino.mobi/profile/
tide.mino.mobi/profile/
(if this all holds up to scrutiny...)
some of the most interesting bits of this claudemath, is that it not only ran into a pair of well-known published theorems that would refute its work, but showed why they were *wrong* (how's that for non-sycophantism / deferral to authority?):
some of the most interesting bits of this claudemath, is that it not only ran into a pair of well-known published theorems that would refute its work, but showed why they were *wrong* (how's that for non-sycophantism / deferral to authority?):
![The Main Theorem is incompatible with a published result. CDP proved
in [CDP98] that a compact complex threefold X with bz(X) = 0 and a (X) > 0 has c3(X) = e(X) = 0, and deduced that a compact complex threefold homeomorphic to S° has algebraic dimension O. That proof rests on [CDP98, L1.5], which is incorrect as stated; the corrigendum says so and re-proves the results in two cases. [CDP20, T2.1] treats the case in which there exists a non-constant meromorphic map g: X -- P' which is not holomorphic (this case is written out in detail in [LRS,
Thm. 3.1, Cor. 3.2]), while [CDP20, T2.2] treats the case H' (X, Z) = H2(X,Z) = 0,
a (X) = 1 with holomorphic algebraic reduction f: X → C, concluding (a) H' (X, Tx 8 M) = 0 for i ‡ 1 and generic M є Pic (X), (b) x (X, Tx 8 M) ≤ 0 and (c) c3 (X) ≤ 0; together these give [CDP20, Cor. 2.3]: if X
is homeomorphic to S' then a (X) = 0. The manifold of the Main Theorem has H' (X, Z) = H-(X,Z) = 0,
a(X) = 1, holomorphic algebraic reduction f: X → P1, and c3(X) = 2 > 0, so that conclusion (c) fails; so does conclusion (b), since c (X) = c2(X) = 0 and Pic(X) = Pic® (X) give, by Riemann-Roch,
x (X, Tx @ M) = 5c3 (X) = 1 > 0 for every M e Pic(X). It therefore contradicts [CDP20, Thm. 2.2] and
[CDP20, Cor. 2.3], as well as [CDP20, L4.2] (the special case 8 = 0, b1 = 0 of [CDP98, L
3.21), [CDP20, C5.2] and [CDP20, Prop. 5.5] (= [CDP98, Thm. 3.1, Rem. 3.8(1)]), whose conclusions fail for X (their printed proofs presuppose trivial monodromy); this failure is repairable for the purpose of the proof of Cor. 2.3 at X (§10), unlike the reduction at the non-normal fibre, which is decisive. It does not contradict [CDP20, Thm. 2.1] or [LRS], whose hypothesis is the existence of some non-constant non-holomorphic meromorphic map X -- P', and no such map exists on our X: by item (5) of the Main Theorem M (X) = f*C(t), so every non-constant meromorphic map X --> P' is of the form h.f with h.a non-constant rational function on B, hence is holomorphic.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bjaceaxgoto5p7gor2rcov3g/bafkreie6ybxglvg4g4nxlsiywhbm2rmkac5brr4ycolpt5is7jfjbbxkoe)
August 24, 2026 at 9:52 AM
(if this all holds up to scrutiny...)
some of the most interesting bits of this claudemath, is that it not only ran into a pair of well-known published theorems that would refute its work, but showed why they were *wrong* (how's that for non-sycophantism / deferral to authority?):
some of the most interesting bits of this claudemath, is that it not only ran into a pair of well-known published theorems that would refute its work, but showed why they were *wrong* (how's that for non-sycophantism / deferral to authority?):
Claude tried to add 36 + 59 and got '92ish' after some wild mental gymnastics 🤔💃. Guess when your calculator says 'ish,' you know it's time for a math tutor! 🧮😂 #ClaudeMath #MathStruggles
techspot.com/news/107347-...
techspot.com/news/107347-...
We are finally beginning to understand how LLMs work: No, they don't simply predict word after word
Circuit tracing is a relatively new technique that lets researchers track how an AI model builds its answers step by step – like following the wiring in...
techspot.com
April 2, 2025 at 12:49 AM
Claude tried to add 36 + 59 and got '92ish' after some wild mental gymnastics 🤔💃. Guess when your calculator says 'ish,' you know it's time for a math tutor! 🧮😂 #ClaudeMath #MathStruggles
techspot.com/news/107347-...
techspot.com/news/107347-...