HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
teorth
erdosproblems
Python2025–2026
teorth / erdosproblems

erdosproblems

A community database for the problems on the erdosproblems.com site

23Distinct people
29Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
883GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A community database for the problems on the erdosproblems.com site

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 10:02:05 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month29 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-12-28 15:01:54 UTC to 2026-09-04 03:27:56 UTC.

0369122025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 2 submissions, 0 commentsDec 20252026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 4 submissions, 8 comments2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsApr 20262026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC220
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC1248
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC404
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC202
May 20262026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Jun 20262026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20262026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20262026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Sep 20262026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
> On the wiki, I have decided to expand Section 2(d), "AI tools used to rewrite an existing argument" to also include cases such as the one here, in which the AI tool indirectly caused the argument to be rewritten in a substantive way (beyond mere typos etc.) by identifying a non-trivial mathematical issue in the previous version of the text, which was then fixed by a human author. Fwiw, wiki Section 2(d): https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution...
In ChatGPT finds an error in Terence Tao's math research
"It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Like with the recent solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for Erdos problems, even though in almost all cases such solutions rely on poorly-known past publications, or significant expert user guidance and essential tools like Aristotle, which do non-AI formal verification - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, though these are not interesting proofs to most modern mathematicians, LLMs are a major factor in a tiny minority of these mostly-not-very-interesting proofs: https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution..." The
Read the rest
thing about spin and AI hype (besides being trivially easy to write) is that is isn't even trying to be objective. It would help if a lot of these articles would more carefully lay out what is actually surprising, and what is not, given current tech and knowledge. Only a fool would think we aren't potentially on the verge of something truly revolutionary here. But only a fool would also be certain that the revolution has already happened, or that e.g. AGI is necessarily imminent. The reason HN has value is because you can actually see some specifics of the matter discussed, and, if you are lucky, an expert even might join in to qualify everything. But pointing out "how interesting that there are extremes to this" is just engagement bait.
In GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs have driven these proofs: https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution...
In GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.