From the HN thread:
Physicist here. Did you guys actually read the paper? Am I missing something? The "key" AI-conjectured formula (39) is an obvious generalization of (35)-(38), and something a human would have guessed immediately.
(35)-(38) are the AI-simplified versions of (29)-(32). Those earlier formulae look formidable to simplify by hand, but they are also the sort of thing you'd try to use a computer algebra system for.
And:
Also a physicist here -- I had the same reaction. Going from (35-38) to (39) doesn't look like much of a leap for a human. They say (35-38) was obtained from the full result by the LLM, but if the authors derived the full expression in (29-32) themselves presumably they could do the special case too? (given it's much simpler). The more I read the post and preprint the less clear it is which parts the LLM did.
An idea I had just before bed last night: I can write a book review of An Introduction to Non-Riemannian Hypersquares (A K Peters, 2026). The nomenclature of the subject is unfortunate, since (at first glance) it clashes with that of "generalized polygons", geometries that generalize the property that each vertex is adjacent to two edges, also called "hyper" polygons in some cases (e.g., Conway and Smith's "hyperhexagon" of integral octonions). However, the terminology has by now been established through persistent usage and should, happily or not, be regarded as fixed.
Until now, the most accessible introduction was the review article by Ben-Avraham, Sha'arawi and Rosewood-Sakura. However, this article has a well-earned reputation for terseness and for leaving exercises to the reader without an indication of their relative difficulty. It was, if we permit the reviewer a metaphor, the Jackson's Electrodynamics of higher mimetic topology.
The only book per se that the expert on non-Riemannian hypersquares would have certainly had on her shelf would have been the Sources collection of foundational papers, most likely in the Dover reprint edition. Ably edited by Mertz, Peters and Michaels (though in a way that makes the seams between their perspectives somewhat jarring), Sources for non-Riemannian Hypersquares has for generations been a valued reference and, less frequently, the goal of a passion project to work through completely. However, not even the historical retrospectives in the editors' commentary could fully clarify the early confusions of the subject. As with so many (all?) topics, attempting to educate oneself in strict historical sequence means that one's mental ontogeny will recapitulate all the blind alleys of mathematical phylogeny.
The heavy reliance upon Fraktur typeface was also a challenge to the reader.