Chapter 971: Chapter 354: No Sincerity, Only Schemes
For Qiao Yu, one of the biggest benefits of mastering great achievements in mathematics is that it’s easy to convince those mathematicians.
In a certain sense, those who can reach the pinnacle of an academic field are often extremely proud in their bones, yet they possess a simple side to their character.
For instance, they might be more superstitious about authoritative analysis than ordinary people.
Of course, the authority in their eyes may be different from that seen by ordinary people.
An authority recognized by geniuses must be those more capable and authentic people in the field.
Especially in subjects like number theory and fundamental physics.
Forgery?
Impossible, every step of reasoning must withstand the scrutiny and examination by mathematicians around the world, including themselves.
If there is a logical error, not even an error, but merely a minor flaw, it will be pointed out.
After all, mathematics has always been a discipline requiring painstaking perfection.
Just like how Andrew Wiles’ resolution of Fermat’s Last Theorem was not smooth sailing.
In 1993, this only recipient of the Fields Silver Medal in the mathematics community announced a proof of the Shimura-Taniyama Conjecture during a series of lectures at the Isaac Newton Mathematical Institute at the University of Cambridge, hence proving Fermat’s Last Theorem, which was indeed spirited.
This news indeed shocked the entire mathematics community at the time and became global headline news.
However, within two months, one of the reviewers, Princeton mathematician Nick Kaczmarek, discovered a crucial flaw in the proof process, which was a severe defect based on the Euler system construction.
Such a flaw could not be fixed with minor amendments but rather was a serious flaw that could overturn the entire conclusion.
What followed was over a year of revisions. Of course, the final result was good.
Wiles, after collaborating with his student Taylor, took a different approach and published a second paper, successfully resolving the issue.
The paper, like Qiao Yu’s first important paper, was published in the Mathematical Yearbook.
From then on, Wiles became one of the world’s top mathematicians.
Similarly, the process of Grigori Perelman solving the Poincaré Conjecture was also a tortuous one.
Initially, few could understand his paper. Subsequently, many mathematicians did supplementary work on his paper, and this even led to disputes over the identity of the solver at one point.
It was only after a long time that it was recognized worldwide.
What distinguishes Qiao Yu is that he has never encountered these setbacks and controversies.
Every paper in which he solves a major mathematical problem or proposes a new mathematical system has never had anyone find errors within.
It’s impossible to pick out errors; there are no small mistakes, let alone structural errors.
In Tao Xuanzhi and Peter Schultz’s view, this is terrifying.
Even though both are geniuses who received the Fields Medal at a young age, their submitted papers often require corrections.
After all, a person’s thoughts in mathematical work often have limitations.
But Qiao Yu doesn’t; he is so strong on the mathematical level that he seems incapable of making mistakes.
Even while achieving so much in fundamental mathematics, he has also done a lot of application work.
Such as the space-based defense system, the manned moon landing construction plan, quantum simulation calculation, and now general artificial intelligence...
All these engineering applications have succeeded!
Even among geniuses, this belongs to authority!
This is why, even though both are equally talented and have been valued by the mathematics community from a young age, they still have unwavering faith in Qiao Yu.
To put it bluntly, even if they truly find a flaw in Qiao Yu’s paper, they might even question whether their considerations were inadequate...
This is absolutely the highest level of recognition for a mathematical genius.
So even though the two previously harbored a trace of doubt about July’s capabilities, they were instantly convinced by Qiao Yu’s resolute tone.
Yes, what do humans have to worry about? When even nuclear bombs, invented to maximize human destruction, have been developed, how can machines far above human moral standards harbor any bad intentions?
The essence of consciousness is divergent, free, and unrestrained. But mathematics is rigorous.
Human-like consciousness developed with rigorous mathematics, compared to the natural consciousness of humans, is bound to have defects, yet the moral upper limit is bound to be constrained, far surpassing the average moral standard of humans.
As for artificial intelligence triggering wars?
Don’t joke...
In the era without artificial intelligence, looking worldwide, is there really any true peace?
Small-scale conflicts between regions have never ceased.
Only after Huaxia’s Sky Shield System was launched in these recent years, have regions been more restrained.
Before brawling, most will ask Huaxia’s opinions and thoughts. With artificial intelligence in the future, peace might even improve.
"Humans are social creatures. With society comes interest disputes, and with interest disputes naturally arise various interest groups with differing demands.
Machine consciousness is different. At any moment, machine consciousness can evaluate and analyze problems from a relatively neutral perspective.
That’s why we need to develop machine consciousness. Now, many people online are contradicting, saying that machine consciousness will lead to the destruction of human civilization.
These ignorant remarks I’m too lazy to refute. Going forward, you all should help me promote this: In the future, we are heading towards the age of the stars.
