Nathaniel Johnston

Nathaniel Johnston

@njohnston.ca

Associate Professor of Mathematics at Mount Allison University Interested in quantum information theory, Conway's Game of Life, recreational mathematics, and mathematics pedagogy. 🔗 https://njohnston.ca/ ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/@NathanielMath

382 followers127 following113 posts

I am exactly 0% surprised that this conjecture is false (I vaguely recall telling Vern Paulsen, when he told me about this conjecture, that I would eat my hat if it's true). But people have worked *hard* to prove and to disprove it.

Sure enough, the barrier in our proof was broken down by AI, which proved Lemmas 35 and 36 for us, which then allowed everything else to fall into place.

New preprint up today with Benjamin Lovitz: arxiv.org/abs/2609.11849 We construct positive-partial-transpose states with Schmidt number near n - sqrt(2n), versus the previously best-known constructions with Schmidt number of roughly n/2.

arxiv.orgPPT states of almost maximal Schmidt numberWe construct PPT states on $\mathbb{C}^m \otimes\mathbb{C}^n$ that have Schmidt number asymptotically approaching the smaller local dimension. More specifically, we construct a PPT state with Schmidt ...

Notably, this is my first paper that made significant usage of AI. We used ChatGPT-6 Astra to develop the first version of the proof of the paper's main result.

For a bit of context, I worked on this problem a fair bit during my PhD (roughly 15 years ago). It’s the first nontrivial step in a larger (still open), much harder, problem in the field called “NPT bound entanglement”.

This first step always had a “I’m surprised we can’t figure this out” feel to it, so it’s maybe not surprising that AI beat us to it. But I’m having a really hard time seeing how we evaluate authorship and credit going forward. Theory builders seem somewhat safe for now, but problem solvers?

Luis's numerics also suggested some other conjectures. Some of these conjectures were true (such as what is now Theorem 5 in the paper) and some were not. One of the not-true conjectures was that if n is prime then the only connected regular {-1,0,1}-diagonalizable graph is the complete graph K_n.

In the process of trying to prove this conjecture, we showed that K_n is indeed the only such graph for n prime when n <= 29. However, for n >= 31, there are others (Table 3).

Luis did some great computational work that led us to conjecture that every order-n Laplacian integral graph, when n is prime, has disconnected complement. We ended up proving this conjecture (Theorem 1 in the paper, which has a surprisingly simple proof).

Luis's computational results generated all Laplacian integral graphs up to order 12. Theorem 1 then makes it straightforward to generate all Laplacian integral graphs on order 13 as well.

Finding the maximum or a minimum value of a single-variable polynomial is standard calculus fare, but doing this for polynomials of multiple variables is very hard. Our paper presents a method that works better than any other know methods for many polynomials.

The goal of the paper is to answer the question "If a matrix can be written as a convex combination of rank-one PSD matrices that are each non-zero only on a single k-by-k principal submatrix, what is the fewer number of matrices needed in that convex combination?"

If k is the size of the matrix then this quantity is exactly the rank of the matrix. If k = 1 then the matrix must be diagonal and this quantity is again the rank of the matrix. For intermediate values of k, more interesting stuff happens.

Now, two months later, Musk says that "Grok 3 is becoming superhuman" because Grok 3 obtained just as good as solution (i.e., an absolutely terrible non-solution) to this Putnam problem. Unreal.

Nathaniel Johnston@njohnston.ca

To see why this line of reasoning falls flat to me, let's look at its answer to this year's question A6. If you don't want to read the technical details of the question, all that really matters here is that the question asks you to compute a formula for something.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

#3 (3/4) However, it's natural to ask whether or not the same is true of infinitely large oscillators. There are plenty of infinitely large oscillators with average density equal to 0.5, but until 2023 the best known *upper* bound on the average density of an oscillator was 8/13 ≈ 0.615.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

#3 (1/4): Oscillator density. In the early days of Life, it was conjectured that the maximum density (i.e., maximum ratio of alive cells to dead cells) of an infinitely large still life is 0.5. This density is easily attained by alternating rows of dead and alive cells.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

#2 (3/4) For this reason, people have been cataloging glider syntheses of patterns in Life ever since the early 1970s. We've known how to synthesize all small (say 10 cell or smaller) still lifes and oscillators since those early days. Recently this was pushed to all <= 21-cell still lifes in 2022.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

#1 (4/4) In 2024, Adam P. Goucher completely resolved this problem by showing that there does not exist a phoenix oscillator of any period other than 2. The proof is computer-assisted, but the idea behind it is very readable: cp4space.hatsya.com/2024/01/20/e...

cp4space.hatsya.comEvery finite phoenix has period 2A phoenix is an oscillator in Conway’s Life where every cell dies in every generation. The smallest example is Phoenix 1, which oscillates with period 2 and has a constant population of 12: A…

#2 (1/4): Still life glider synthesis. A glider synthesis is a way of crashing together 2 or more gliders so as to create another object. For example, in the image below three gliders collide so as to create a lightweight spaceship.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky

View full thread

#1 (2/4) That phoenix was found in the early days of Life (1970 or 1971), and since then people have been wondering whether or not there are phoenices of any other periods. And previously, only a few scattered periods had been ruled out.

#1 (3/4) In 2000, Stephen Silver showed that period 3 phoenices don't exist. In 2019, Alex Greason showed that period 5 phoenices don't exist. And in 2023, Keith Amling showed that period 7, 9, and 11 phoenices don't exist.

Happy New Year! Just like every year, there were tons of fantastic discoveries and theorems proved in Conway's Game of Life in 2024. This is a thread for my three favourites (and the context behind them to try to convince you that they're interesting). 🧵 #MathSky