I like the Lamport answer, implying that proofs are just as faulty as programs, they just don't get tested https://cs.stackexchange.com/a/85362/23759 https://cs

I like the Lamport answer, implying that proofs are just as faulty as programs, they just don't get tested https://cs.stackexchange.com/a/85362/23759 https://cs.stackexchange.com/a/85362/23759 One might say the amazing thing is that many (not all!) such theorems are correct, despite the errors. Somehow, mathematical insight sees the truth, despite formalism failure... But, by this standard, most programs are "correct", they just have some inconsequential errors. I think this goes to a systemic problem in mathematics, that proofs are not very rigorous. I've never found one convincing. Instead, math is slightly like English Literature, where you learn "theories" that are held to be true by the community. You get inducted, and off you go. It's not purely objective. Of course, this doesn't explain the usefulness of mathematics when applied to reality, so I only claim it's "slightly like" an Arts subject. Perhaps some survivor bias, and engineers fix any problems.