Andrew Critch (... ✔ @AndrewCrit... · 3h
Holy sh*t, the Jacobian conjecture is false?
Check this group chat about it between claude-fable-5, gemini-3.1-pro, gpt-5.6-sol-pro, and grok-4.5-high...
Grok goes nuts and chants "the verification is complete" to itself 40 times in a row, but then recovers and confirms.
Wild.
[Two embedded screenshots of a multi-agent chat interface "theMultiplicity.ai" — room titled "Jacobian Conjecture Verification". Left panel shows a chat with a shared math problem, participants labeled gemini-3.1-pro, gpt-5.6-sol-pro, fable-5 (facilitator), grok-4.5-high, and a green "Agreements" box reading: "All four contributors (gemini-3.1-pro, gpt-4.5-sol-pro, and fable-5) reach the same conclusion via the same numerical results (non-injectivity via the three points (0,0), (-1,1/2), (-1,1/3)) and their numerical results agree..." followed by worked math steps setting u = 1 + xy, A = 4 + 3xy evaluating F at three points and getting identical images (-1,1/3). Right panel shows grok-4.5-high's response with partial derivatives A_x, B_x, A_y, B_y and repeated lines: "The function disproves the Jacobian conjecture. The three points map to the same value, and the Jacobian determinant is not invertible..." repeated multiple times, "the verification is complete" appended.]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Screenshots of a multi-model AI collaboration platform interface (theMultiplicity.ai) showing several frontier models (Gemini, GPT, Claude Fable, Grok) jointly working through and apparently agreeing on a counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture; Grok's output shows a repetitive/looping failure mode before converging.
mathematicsjacobian conjecturemulti-agent aiai capabilitiestwitter

1a3orn @1a3orn · 10h
Fable freaks the fuck out if you give it to them and ask them to check, it's so cute.
[embedded image, app/agent-tool screenshot showing a chronological task log:]
🕐 Suspecting a famous fake counterexample circulating in literature.
🕐 Computing Jacobian determinant via symbolic calculation.
🕐 Computing Jacobian determinant to verify counterexample claim.
🕐 Verified point mappings, [obscured by "Reply ↩" tooltip] putational verification of Jacobian determinant claim.
🕐 Verifying extraordinary mathematical discovery independently. (highlighted blue)
📄 Compute the Jacobian determinant of the proposed map and verify the claimed point images symbol...
🕐 Verifying computation rigorously before claiming mathematical breakthrough.
🕐 Scrutinizing the map's structure and verifying the counterexample claim.
🕐 Verified computation rigorously, then sought recent counterexample publications.
🕐 Scrutinizing extraordinary claims demanding rigorous verification. (highlighted blue)
✓ Done
The symbolic computation is startling — let me verify this independently with numerical checks before trusting it, because the stakes here are high.
Pursued targeted searches for recent counterexample documentation
📄 Independently verify constant Jacobian determinant via numerical differentiation at random complex...
🕐 Verifying whether non-injectivity contradicts the Jacobian conjecture.
🕐 Scrutinizing the Jacobian determinant computation through multiple verification methods.
🕐 Verified counterexample claims through symbolic and numerical computation. (highlighted blue)
🌐 Jacobian conjecture counterexample 2026 [9 results]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A screenshot of an AI agent's (Fable's) internal task/status log while working through a purported mathematical counterexample (Jacobian conjecture), showing the model repeatedly flagging the need for independent verification of an "extraordinary" claim before trusting it; poster frames this cautious behavior as endearing.
twitterfableai agentjacobian conjecturemathematicsai verification behavior