Difficulty understanding complex theoretical physics concepts and their application in proofs

Signals over time

2 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 7 days. Confidence: low.

What people are saying Observed

• “> the NL proof may be wrong. But who cares? The people trying to understand the proof are probably following the natural language version. So they care. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s how this paper (which I did not read) arose.”

  Hacker News · complaint

• “From my current understanding (and a lot of theoretical physics I'm having to Google because the sentences I'm reading from Fable's analysis are so bizarre I think they are hallucinations) there are possibly 3 neat symbolic tricks borrowed from theoretical physics that make the heart of this proof. Forgive me for posting LLM output but I find this darkly hilarious: "it's a matrix-tree cancellation wearing Kasteleyn's planar signs, run as a Witten index over Penrose-lineage states, evaluated as a fugacity-zero loop gas in an infinitesimal magnetic field — and the reason it reads like physics is that every one of those tools was built for partition functions" I thought this was pure slop when I read it but there are some clear analogues in these other areas of physics, really neat computational tricks, and a very interesting paper by Penrose calculating Tait colorings I never knew about previously (extremely relevant, actually related to a separate approach I had once taken on this problem). The problem is that the paper isn't saying "aha, we were inspired by the related problems of pairing excited states and creating spanning trees out of”

  Hacker News · frustration