2 ms·
> That isn't a proof, it's a procedure for finding a proof. That's exactly my point. I wasn't being serious.
by Houshalter 10y ago
> That isn't a proof, it's a procedure for finding a proof.
That's exactly my point. I wasn't being serious.
- tgb 10y agoI think you're missing an important point though. The article's proof is guaranteed to be verifiable in a known finite amount of time. Your example does not so it's hard to take commentary from it onto the article's subject.
- sparky_z 10y agoI think you're missing the important point that Houshalter was being sarcastically critical of makmanalp's dismissive top-level comment, not the proof in the article.
- tgb 10y agoI don't see how Houshalter's post can possibly be read as sarcastic, it looks like a technical comment that makes an interesting point that is slightly tangential. I simply don't know how to read that comment as if there were a /s at the end. And I don't see how the top level comment can be considered dismissive, it too is making an interesting point that we should use another metric.
- marcosdumay 10y ago> it looks like a technical comment that makes an interesting point that is slightly tangential That's why I love Math. But hey, I hope your post is sarcastic too. But don't mind, there's no procedure you could use to convince me it isn't.