Great article. This is a question that's come up before in Mathematics, for example the Four-Color theorem. "Can a proof that's not comprehensible by humans rea

Great article. This is a question that's come up before in Mathematics, for example the Four-Color theorem. "Can a proof that's not comprehensible by humans really be called a proof?" Personally I'm with Norvig. While finding simple patterns is extremely nice and useful, there's no inherent reason why the Universe should follow an easily described set of rules. If it's the difference between an elegant but useless theorem or a useful but incomprehensible pattern, I'll pick the latter every time.