Comment by Someone

I think “new math” is ‘just’ humans creating new terminology that helps keep proofs short (similar to how programmers write functions to keep the logic of the main program understandable), and I agree that is something LLMs are bad at.

However, if that idea about new math is correct, we, in theory, don’t need new math to (dis)prove the Riemann hypotheses (assuming it is provable or disprovable in the current system).

In practice we may still need new math because a proof of the Riemann hypotheses using our current arsenal of mathematical ‘objects’ may be enormously large, making it hard to find.