<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>New Lower Bounds for Cap Sets · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2209.10045/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2209.10045/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>New Lower Bounds for Cap Sets — mentioned by nybsjytm</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38647917</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2209.10045:38647917</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 22:00:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; An LLM can discover a new solution in high dimensional geometry that hasn’t advanced in 20 years!? That goes way beyond glueing little bits of plagiarized training data together in a plausible way. The first advance in 20 years was by Fred Tyrrell last year https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10045, who showed that the combinatorics quantity in question is between 2.218 and 2.756, improving the previous lower bound of 2.2174. DeepMind has now shown that the number is between 2.2202 and 2.756. That&amp;#x27;s why the DeepMind authors describe it as &amp;quot;the largest increase in the size of cap sets in the past 20…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2209.10045/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
