Skip to main content
added 308 characters in body
Source Link

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened (see below).

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical is correct. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.


Here is ChatGPT's (wrong) answer to "Write down a detailed proof that every monoidal abelian category admit an exact, lax monoidal functor to abelian groups. Include commutative diagrams as well." (since the modal is stochastic, you will probably get a different answer though):

First, let us construct an abelian category $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: the objects of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$, and the morphisms of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ except that we require them to be strictly additive, i.e. $f + g = h$ implies $f = h-g$ and $g = h-f$. Composition in $\mathcal{C}'$ is the same as in $\mathcal{C}$, and the identity morphism on an object $c$ is the same as the identity morphism in $\mathcal{C}$.

It is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{C}'$ is indeed an abelian category. To see that it is monoidal, we define the monoidal product $\otimes'$ on $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: given two objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $c_1 \otimes' c_2 = c_1 \otimes c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Given two morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $f \otimes' g = f \otimes g$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is straightforward to check that $\otimes'$ is associative and that $I' = I$ is the identity object.

Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is an abelian category, it admits an exact, faithful functor $F: \mathcal{C}' \to \mathbf{Ab}$ to the category of abelian groups. Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is monoidal and $F$ is a functor, it is also lax monoidal, meaning that it preserves the monoidal structure up to natural isomorphism. In other words, there exist natural isomorphisms $$F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) \cong F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2)$$ for all objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, and $$F(f \otimes' g) \cong F(f) \otimes F(g)$$ for all morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$. These natural isomorphisms can be represented by the following commutative diagrams: $$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \ \downarrow & & \downarrow \ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

When you replace \ by \\ in the latter diagram, it looks like this:

$$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened (see below).

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical is correct. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.


Here is ChatGPT's (wrong) answer to "Write down a detailed proof that every monoidal abelian category admit an exact, lax monoidal functor to abelian groups. Include commutative diagrams as well." (since the modal is stochastic, you will probably get a different answer though):

First, let us construct an abelian category $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: the objects of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$, and the morphisms of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ except that we require them to be strictly additive, i.e. $f + g = h$ implies $f = h-g$ and $g = h-f$. Composition in $\mathcal{C}'$ is the same as in $\mathcal{C}$, and the identity morphism on an object $c$ is the same as the identity morphism in $\mathcal{C}$.

It is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{C}'$ is indeed an abelian category. To see that it is monoidal, we define the monoidal product $\otimes'$ on $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: given two objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $c_1 \otimes' c_2 = c_1 \otimes c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Given two morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $f \otimes' g = f \otimes g$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is straightforward to check that $\otimes'$ is associative and that $I' = I$ is the identity object.

Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is an abelian category, it admits an exact, faithful functor $F: \mathcal{C}' \to \mathbf{Ab}$ to the category of abelian groups. Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is monoidal and $F$ is a functor, it is also lax monoidal, meaning that it preserves the monoidal structure up to natural isomorphism. In other words, there exist natural isomorphisms $$F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) \cong F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2)$$ for all objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, and $$F(f \otimes' g) \cong F(f) \otimes F(g)$$ for all morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$. These natural isomorphisms can be represented by the following commutative diagrams: $$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \ \downarrow & & \downarrow \ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened (see below).

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical is correct. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.


Here is ChatGPT's (wrong) answer to "Write down a detailed proof that every monoidal abelian category admit an exact, lax monoidal functor to abelian groups. Include commutative diagrams as well." (since the modal is stochastic, you will probably get a different answer though):

First, let us construct an abelian category $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: the objects of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$, and the morphisms of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ except that we require them to be strictly additive, i.e. $f + g = h$ implies $f = h-g$ and $g = h-f$. Composition in $\mathcal{C}'$ is the same as in $\mathcal{C}$, and the identity morphism on an object $c$ is the same as the identity morphism in $\mathcal{C}$.

It is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{C}'$ is indeed an abelian category. To see that it is monoidal, we define the monoidal product $\otimes'$ on $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: given two objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $c_1 \otimes' c_2 = c_1 \otimes c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Given two morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $f \otimes' g = f \otimes g$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is straightforward to check that $\otimes'$ is associative and that $I' = I$ is the identity object.

Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is an abelian category, it admits an exact, faithful functor $F: \mathcal{C}' \to \mathbf{Ab}$ to the category of abelian groups. Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is monoidal and $F$ is a functor, it is also lax monoidal, meaning that it preserves the monoidal structure up to natural isomorphism. In other words, there exist natural isomorphisms $$F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) \cong F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2)$$ for all objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, and $$F(f \otimes' g) \cong F(f) \otimes F(g)$$ for all morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$. These natural isomorphisms can be represented by the following commutative diagrams: $$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \ \downarrow & & \downarrow \ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

When you replace \ by \\ in the latter diagram, it looks like this:

$$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow \\ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

added 36 characters in body
Source Link

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened (see below).

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical areis correct at all. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.


Here is ChatGPT's (wrong) answer to "Write down a detailed proof that every monoidal abelian category admit an exact, lax monoidal functor to abelian groups. Include commutative diagrams as well." (since the modal is stochastic, you will probably get a different answer though):

First, let us construct an abelian category $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: the objects of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$, and the morphisms of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ except that we require them to be strictly additive, i.e. $f + g = h$ implies $f = h-g$ and $g = h-f$. Composition in $\mathcal{C}'$ is the same as in $\mathcal{C}$, and the identity morphism on an object $c$ is the same as the identity morphism in $\mathcal{C}$.

It is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{C}'$ is indeed an abelian category. To see that it is monoidal, we define the monoidal product $\otimes'$ on $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: given two objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $c_1 \otimes' c_2 = c_1 \otimes c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Given two morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $f \otimes' g = f \otimes g$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is straightforward to check that $\otimes'$ is associative and that $I' = I$ is the identity object.

Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is an abelian category, it admits an exact, faithful functor $F: \mathcal{C}' \to \mathbf{Ab}$ to the category of abelian groups. Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is monoidal and $F$ is a functor, it is also lax monoidal, meaning that it preserves the monoidal structure up to natural isomorphism. In other words, there exist natural isomorphisms $$F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) \cong F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2)$$ for all objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, and $$F(f \otimes' g) \cong F(f) \otimes F(g)$$ for all morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$. These natural isomorphisms can be represented by the following commutative diagrams: $$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \ \downarrow & & \downarrow \ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened.

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical are correct at all. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened (see below).

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical is correct. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.


Here is ChatGPT's (wrong) answer to "Write down a detailed proof that every monoidal abelian category admit an exact, lax monoidal functor to abelian groups. Include commutative diagrams as well." (since the modal is stochastic, you will probably get a different answer though):

First, let us construct an abelian category $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: the objects of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$, and the morphisms of $\mathcal{C}'$ are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}$ except that we require them to be strictly additive, i.e. $f + g = h$ implies $f = h-g$ and $g = h-f$. Composition in $\mathcal{C}'$ is the same as in $\mathcal{C}$, and the identity morphism on an object $c$ is the same as the identity morphism in $\mathcal{C}$.

It is straightforward to verify that $\mathcal{C}'$ is indeed an abelian category. To see that it is monoidal, we define the monoidal product $\otimes'$ on $\mathcal{C}'$ as follows: given two objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $c_1 \otimes' c_2 = c_1 \otimes c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}$. Given two morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, we define $f \otimes' g = f \otimes g$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is straightforward to check that $\otimes'$ is associative and that $I' = I$ is the identity object.

Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is an abelian category, it admits an exact, faithful functor $F: \mathcal{C}' \to \mathbf{Ab}$ to the category of abelian groups. Since $\mathcal{C}'$ is monoidal and $F$ is a functor, it is also lax monoidal, meaning that it preserves the monoidal structure up to natural isomorphism. In other words, there exist natural isomorphisms $$F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) \cong F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2)$$ for all objects $c_1, c_2$ in $\mathcal{C}'$, and $$F(f \otimes' g) \cong F(f) \otimes F(g)$$ for all morphisms $f,g$ in $\mathcal{C}'$. These natural isomorphisms can be represented by the following commutative diagrams: $$\begin{array}{ccc} F(c_1 \otimes' c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \ \downarrow & & \downarrow \ F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) & \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} & F(c_1) \otimes F(c_2) \end{array}$$

Post Undeleted by Martin Brandenburg
added 36 characters in body
Source Link

At first I do notdid not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. In particular, ChatGPT is not able to produceThe answers didn't contain formulas (EDIT: erm, I was wrong about this), let alone commutative diagrams! The claim.

But then I realized that the diagrams are nonsensical is not entirely trueyou can actually add requirements in your query. For some reasons the linebreaks where done with \ and thus another \ was missingI asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I have just added themasked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened. In

Interestingly, the (deleted) answer you can now see very meaningfulline breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single (but still\, the proofwhere a double \\ is flawed of course)required.

I am aware And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have stated my concerns aboutedited his answers anddiagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they resemble ChatGPTare nonsensical are correct at all. After the edit, but to my best knowledge they cannot be generated by ChatGPT or any other AIwere a bit less nonsensical (still wrong). Maybe

Given this, it is a really advanced AI which is not even public yet and the uservery likely that canvas123 has indeed used mathoverflow as a playgroundChatGPT. This would be impressive on one hand (given

It is well-known that someChatGPT often produces wrong answers were quite good)for complicated, but of course needs a disclaimer at least within each such answertechnical questions.

To be honest Personally, I am still a bit puzzled about what happened hereamazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and I hope that weprobably they will find out more about thiseven get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.

I do not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow". I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive, they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. In particular, ChatGPT is not able to produce formulas (EDIT: erm, I was wrong about this), let alone commutative diagrams! The claim that the diagrams are nonsensical is not entirely true. For some reasons the linebreaks where done with \ and thus another \ was missing. I have just added them. In the (deleted) answer you can now see very meaningful diagrams (but still, the proof is flawed of course).

I am aware that I have stated my concerns about his answers and that they resemble ChatGPT, but to my best knowledge they cannot be generated by ChatGPT or any other AI. Maybe it is a really advanced AI which is not even public yet and the user has used mathoverflow as a playground. This would be impressive on one hand (given that some answers were quite good), but of course needs a disclaimer at least within each such answer.

To be honest, I am still a bit puzzled about what happened here, and I hope that we will find out more about this.

At first I did not agree with the title "ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow", because we need to verify (somehow) that the answers were indeed created by ChatGPT. I have tested ChatGPT with similar questions like the one about monoidal abelian categories, and although the results were certainly impressive (not correct, but looking good on a superficial level), they were not even close to what the user canvas123 has posted. The answers didn't contain formulas, let alone commutative diagrams.

But then I realized that you can actually add requirements in your query. I asked ChatGPT to give a "detailed proof", which produced formulas as well. Then I asked to "include commutative diagrams as well", which indeed happened.

Interestingly, the line breaks in the commutative diagrams were done with a single \, where a double \\ is required. And the same was the case in the answer by canvas123. Just so that you know, I have edited his diagrams accordingly to make them more readable, because I was curious if the claim that they are nonsensical are correct at all. After the edit, they were a bit less nonsensical (still wrong).

Given this, it is very likely that canvas123 has indeed used ChatGPT.

It is well-known that ChatGPT often produces wrong answers for complicated, technical questions. Personally, I am still amazed by this tool since sometimes they turn out to be correct, and probably they will even get much better in the next months and years. At some point, it will become very hard to distinguish them from answers written by human beings.

Post Deleted by Martin Brandenburg
added 36 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
Source Link
Loading