I like this idea! Quick question: Have you considered whether, for a version of this that uses past data/conjectures, one could use existing data compiled by AI Impacts rather than the Wikipedia article from 2015 (as you suggest)?
(Though I guess if you go back in time sufficiently far, it arguably becomes less clear whether Laplace’s rule is a plausible model. E.g., did mathematicians in any sense ‘try’ to square the circle in every year between Antiquity and 1882?)
I wish I had known about the AI Impacts data sooner.
As the point out, looking at remembered conjectures maybe adds some bias. But then later in their post, they mention:
In 2014, we found conjectures referenced on Wikipedia, and recorded the dates that they were proposed and resolved, if they were resolved. We updated this list of conjectures in 2020, marking any whose status had changed
Which could also be used to answer this question. But in their dataset, I don’t see any conjectures proved between 2014 and 2020, which is odd.
I like this idea! Quick question: Have you considered whether, for a version of this that uses past data/conjectures, one could use existing data compiled by AI Impacts rather than the Wikipedia article from 2015 (as you suggest)?
(Though I guess if you go back in time sufficiently far, it arguably becomes less clear whether Laplace’s rule is a plausible model. E.g., did mathematicians in any sense ‘try’ to square the circle in every year between Antiquity and 1882?)
I wish I had known about the AI Impacts data sooner.
As the point out, looking at remembered conjectures maybe adds some bias. But then later in their post, they mention:
Which could also be used to answer this question. But in their dataset, I don’t see any conjectures proved between 2014 and 2020, which is odd.
Anyways, thanks for the reference!