I never got Warren's original! There were also the Wester tests: http://math.unm.edu/~wester/cas/book/contents.html which, I believe, Macsyma consistently won. --rwg On 2016-02-08 20:28, Thane Plambeck wrote:
I think this a great proposal for a significant and meaningful AI test, ie is it possible to write a program that solves Putnam problems by writing solutions for them that would pass muster with human judges. If it is possible, I'd think having AI interlocutors (collaborators?) for doing math research wouldnt be far off, because one could pose similar problems and let the AI try them, too. Doron Zeilberger already routinely talks about his computer as a collaborator but that isnt at all the same in my opinion, at least as far as I understand his research. I'd say the same thing about papers in Experimental Mathematics journals .... they heavily use computers as tools but not as a direct collaborators in English.
On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> wrote:
And as far as I know there have sometimes been post-graduate level "competitive math exams" such as one where teams from Mathematica Inc, Maple Inc, etc were to solve a set of torture problems posed by Nick Trefethen within some time limit, using their SMP to help, then the results used to judge how good each SMP was. (I think Gosper and Wolfram were some of the team members and Mathematica was the winning SMP?)
Maybe you all can tell us more about those competitions?
Were they really fair? I mean, it might be that this competition was really more about the humans than about the SMPs, in which case it did not fairly judge those SMPs?
-- Warren D. Smith