4 ms·
I think that is unlikely to be the case - the classic example of a proof that human's "can't understand" is the Four Colour Theorem, but thats because the proof
by camjw 2y ago
I think that is unlikely to be the case - the classic example of a proof that human's "can't understand" is the Four Colour Theorem, but thats because the proof is a reduction to like 100000 special cases which are checked by computer.
To what extent is the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem "incomprehensible to humans" because only like a dozen people on the planet could truly understand it - I don't know.
The point of new proofs is really to learn new things about mathematics, and I'm sure we would learn something from a proof of Goldbach's conjecture.
Finally if it's not peer reviewed then its not a real proof eh.
- hyperbovine 2y agoI think the 4-color theorem is rather different though. It reduced to a large number of cases that can in principle each be verified by a human, if they were so inclined (indeed a few intrepid mathematicians have done so over the years, at least partially.) The point of using a computer was to reduce drudgery, not to prove highly non-obvious things. Thinking back to Wiles' proof of FLT, it took the community several years of intense work just to verify/converge on the correct result. And that proof is ~130 pages. So, what if the computer produced a provably correct, 4000-page proof of the Goldbach conjecture?