Christoph Minz

@cminz
1 Followers
30 Following
33 Posts
Researcher in theoretical and mathematical physics.
Websitehttps://c-minz.github.io
LocationLower Saxony, Germany
GitHubhttps://github.com/c-minz
Programming experiencesPython, Matlab, Java, VisualBasic

I'm moving to a different mastodon server: mathstodon.xyz

This server also has some LaTeX support for posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHK1iXdpvg8

How to migrate to a new Mastodon server as easily as possible

YouTube
Leiden declaration on artificial intelligence and mathematics. https://leidendeclaration.ai/ #AI4Math
Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

This declaration calls for action to address the challenges posed by the use of artificial intelligence within mathematics research.

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics
@apodoxus @windy_harper The building is named after Robert Rathbun Wilson, a physicist and designer of the building (and first director of Fermilab), inspired by Beauvais Cathedral.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130219055652/http://history.fnal.gov/GoldenBooks/gb_wilson2.html
Fermilab History and Archives Project | Golden Books - Starting Fermilab

@FundamentalTime The word 'exotic' was perhaps a poor choice by me for 'non-main-stream'. My posts aimed to raise some general points for the peer-reviewing process and I wanted to give some reasons why a paper can be rejected without further discussion (not just about your work).
@FundamentalTime The peer-reviewing has to be done by someone that can, not only understand your paper, but is also able to point out possible issues with your work (and this often for free). The more your work is directly connected to the research usually published in that journal, the easier it is for the editor to find an expert that can do the review (quickly enough). Exotic or radical ideas are usually either completely wrong or extremely hard to review.
@FundamentalTime Especially if your work contains radical new ideas, you may want to think about: Is there some available literature on the same idea? Is the work consistent with know facts? Are all uncommon phrases and terms properly defined, so that these are understandable to the audience of the journal? What does this work contribute to the research field? Is it actually the right journal for this?
@FundamentalTime For most publications in peer-reviewed journals, a paper should somehow fit into the field. Research is usually a slow process and any new publication makes small steps forward, building on previous research. Peer-reviewing has to be done by the same people, who have to do their own research to publish. So there is not much time for evaluation and feedback is often spared for work that has a good chance of publication. It may also take several tries, at different journals.

We extended the numerical approximation scheme for modular Hamiltonian in quantum field theory and got new results for fermionic fields:

‘Numerical approach to the modular operator for fermionic systems’
http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20001

#qft #quantumfield #modulartheory #modularHamiltonian

Numerical approach to the modular operator for fermionic systems

We numerically approximate the Tomita-Takesaki modular operator for local subalgebras of the 1+1-dimensional massive Majorana field. Our method works at the one-particle level with a discretisation of time-0 data in position space. The local subspaces we consider are associated with one double cone and with the disjoint union of two double cones. In order to avoid boundary effects, we primarily choose the overall spacetime to be a cylinder; different choices of boundary conditions (antiperiodic and periodic) are considered. We compare our numerical results to known analytic expressions in the massless case. It turns out that the modular operator has a non-trivial dependence on the mass. In the case of two double cones, the modular generator does not only have ''local'' contributions (supported on the diagonal in configuration space) but also ''bilocal'' terms (connecting the two double cone regions); we find the latter to be less prominent at higher masses, in line with expectations.

arXiv.org
AI could destroy mathematics and barely touch it
https://davidbessis.substack.com/p/the-fall-of-the-theorem-economy
#AI challenges the "theorem economy" by automating #proofs while overlooking human intuition. Bessis argues that math's true product is understanding, not just results, which AI cannot yet replicate. The discipline's focus on theorems over concepts makes it vulnerable to machines that solve problems without building meaning. To remain relevant, mathematicians must emphasize the field's role in human sense-making rather than competitive symbol-pushing. Success depends on valuing the process of cognitive elevation and the creation of shared conceptual language.
#mathematics #philosophy
The fall of the theorem economy

How AI could destroy mathematics and barely touch it

David Bessis