mb7733

> Copy this into your coding agent:

> Install REA and connect it to this coding agent using npx rea-agents@latest setup. Show me the setup plan for approval, then verify the installation.

We have achieved the next evolution of installation by `curl | bash`!

> they are so much better in a plethora of skills that did not exist 20 years ago

Such as?

> But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.

What is the purpose of that?

Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?

To me, a stranger gaining access to my webcam to secretly watch me isn't just an "attack vector"...

I completely understand your point. I know what a heat pump is and how it works. They are great. I am not anti heat pump. I am pro heat pump.

It's just not the point I was actually responding to. The OP was under the impression that you would be "extracting a lot more energy" from the gas in a plant vs the home.

Yes, converting gas to electricity allows you to use a heat pump, which in many cases uses much _less_ energy than a furnace to heat a home. (As long as it's not too cold.)

But that's just not what I was talking about. I was talking about the claim of extracting _more_ energy from the gas. Good day!

It does not follow that "We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants"

Completely separate conversation. I was responding to the statement "We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants".

Not what I replied to

> We can extract a lot more energy from fossil fuels in large scale plants

This isn't true at all for natural gas. Burning it for heat in the home is much more efficient than burning it in a plant, converting it to electricity, transferring that electricity, then turning that electricity into heat.

Which serious mathematicians?

There is a quotation about peer review. I'm assuming that's also made up.

... What are you getting at, I'm genuinely curious? What's wrong with the phrase "top talent"!?

Maybe I was unclear. The part that I meant a constructivist would disagree was the subjective part: "This kind of proof (existence of a counterexample) provides more insight into the problem than simply finding a counterexample."

I find it hard to believe that a constructivist would agree that across the board, proof of existence of X is more interesting than a construction of X. Isn't that the point!?

To roughly repeat myself from a sibling comment: I may have been unclear. I didn't claim that the only way to disprove something in a constructive system is to produce a counterexample.

The part that I was referring to was the last statement from the OP: that "a proof of existence of a counterexample necessarily provides more insight than a counterexample". I can't imagine a constructivist would agree with that in general.