3 ms·
I was taught that the point of a proof was to convince other practitioners. This is why non-machine-readable proofs can get away with a lot of hand-waving if i
by FullyFunctional 7y ago
I was taught that the point of a proof was to convince other practitioners. This is why non-machine-readable proofs can get away with a lot of hand-waving if it obviously to "someone skilled in the art". By this notion, a proof is not a proof if only the author understands it.
- ttz 7y agoThere was actually a proof by a German mathematician a while back (name escapes me and I'm admittedly too lazy to look it up now) in which his proof was met with criticism for being difficult to understand. It ended up being correct. Not saying Mochizuki is correct, but (without getting too philosophical), a proof can still be a proof even if almost no one understands it.