On 05 Mar 2014, at 17:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
> If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count
as mathematics?
Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're ge
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> > If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
>> mathematics?
>>
>
> Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're getting close to that point.
> When Andrew Wiles p
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
> mathematics?
>
Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're getting close to that point.
When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem it took another world class
mathemati
Hi Telmo,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 13:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
"If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count
as mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> "If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
> mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
> computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the ent
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
> I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
> should be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if
> these proof ch
On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:
"If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the entire content of
Wikipedia, making it unlikely that will ever
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
>> I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
>> should be possibl
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
>> I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
>> should be possibl
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ?
> I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it
> should be possible to devise two independent different proof checker..
But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ? I
guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it should
be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if these
proof checker are smaller than the proof itself (and they should be), then
"If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
mathematics? That's the intriguing question raised by the latest
computer-assisted proof. It is as large as the entire content of Wikipedia,
making it unlikely that will ever be checked by a human being."
http://www.newscientist.
12 matches
Mail list logo
