“A computational no-coincidence principle” by Eric Neyman

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

Audio note: this article contains 134 uses of latex notation, so the narration may be difficult to follow. There's a link to the original text in the episode description.
In a recent paper in Annals of Mathematics and Philosophy, Fields medalist Timothy Gowers asks why mathematicians sometimes believe that unproved statements are likely to be true. For example, it is unknown whether _pi_ is a normal number (which, roughly speaking, means that every digit appears in _pi_ with equal frequency), yet this is widely believed. Gowers proposes that there is no sign of any reason for _pi_ to be non-normal -- especially not one that would fail to reveal itself in the first million digits -- and in the absence of any such reason, any deviation from normality would be an outrageous coincidence. Thus, the likely normality of _pi_ is inferred from the following general principle:
No-coincidence [...]
---
Outline:
(02:32) Our no-coincidence conjecture
(05:37) How we came up with the statement
(08:31) Thoughts for theoretical computer scientists
(10:27) Why we care
The original text contained 12 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
February 14th, 2025
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Xt9r4SNNuYxW83tmo/a-computational-no-coincidence-principle
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.