On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
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
On 05 Mar 2014, at 17:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count
as mathematics?
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
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
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 Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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
Hi Telmo,
On 20 Feb 2014, at 13:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
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
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),
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
