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 Wikipedia Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-02-math-proof-large-humans.html#jCp So now the problem is—can you prove you can trust the computer. Donna Y dy...@sympatico.ca > On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> 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 http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
