3 ms·

> so is it just me, or is the "work" of the normal proof only took 1/5th of the time it took for the automated/formalized proof?! that seems counter-productive

• kazinator 9y ago
  It looks counterproductive when it's not demonstrating informal work to be false. > make it not a hunch That's not what automation is doing; it doesn't turn conjectures into proofs. It finds mistakes in proofs; those proofs are not "hunches" but rigorous efforts. Something which finds faults demonstrates is value mainly whenever it finds a fault. (Or at least that is a very easy perception to slide into.)
  • sanxiyn 9y ago
    And a fault was found! The original proof, as published, is incorrect. The error and the fix was published in "A revision of the proof of the Kepler conjecture" (2009). https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0350 https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0350 Note that we now actually know there is no more fault, because formalization is complete.