On 19 February 2014 09:03, Thaths <tha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Udhay Shankar N <ud...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25068-wikipediasize-maths-proof-too-big-for-humans-to-check.html > > > > Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check > > > > 17:38 17 February 2014 by Jacob Aron > > > > 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. > > >
> The abstract ideas and notations that mathematicians manipulate are > unfathomable to most people. Dr. Mochizuki's new mathematical language -- > on > his Web page, he describes himself as an "inter-universal geometer" -- is > at > present incomprehensible even to other top mathematicians. > > Just as I was drawing solace from the Israeli mathematicians observation that we didn't have to wade through the 10GB proof word by word as long as we could come up with another way of computer-proving the same result, here comes this guy whose methods are apparently fathomable to none save himself, and to him only on his own word! Reminded of the Queen in Alice who believed in six impossible things before breakfast. I've gotten to two (three, if you count Kejriwal's assertion that his party is business friendly). It's been a lovely morning! -- Narendra Shenoy http://narendrashenoy.blogspot.com
