There is a current school of thought that holds that you can just say something 
and make it so—it is certainly not the academic publishing system—they hold 
that to be a scientifically established conclusion it must be verified by 
reproducible scientific results.

When I studied mathematics computer proofs were questioned if they could not be 
examined completely by humans and verified.

Now see "Erdős discrepancy problem"—the proof produced a data file that was 
13-gigabytes in size—far too large for any human to check—longer than the whole 

Read more at:

So now the problem is—can you prove you can trust the computer.

Donna Y

> On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Raul Miller <> wrote:
> One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never
> cared much about reproducible scientific results.

For information about J forums see

Reply via email to