Dear Russell:

I think you miss what I am saying.

At 4/20/01, you wrote:
>I disagree. The UD will have a particular way of generating (or
>enumerating) the theorems of the FAS, such that it doesn't generate
>the same theorem twice.

The UD is [so it is said] generating all theorems.  Some of these are no 
doubt not elegant.  It does not generate proofs twice but may generate more 
than one proof of a given object.

All this is not germane to the fact that it is doing all this by the only 
path [proof] - {its "particular way" as you say} that it has 
available.  That makes this path elegant by default.

Thus we have an algorithm - the generating FAS - generating a very simple 
object [so it is said] by an incredibly complex and elegant "particular way".

Incredibly complex elegant proofs do not end in very simple objects.


Reply via email to