3 ms·
> This one proof, the work of a hundred mathematicians or so, is tens of thousands of pages long and took half a century to complete. Now compare that to googl
by User23 2y ago
> This one proof, the work of a hundred mathematicians or so, is tens of thousands of pages long and took half a century to complete.
Now compare that to google3 or any other large software. It’s absolutely tiny. A paltry edifice in comparison both in pages and man hours as well as mathematical complexity. Boolean structures get monstrously huge.
On the subject of proofs and the verbosity of traditional mathematical methods, this note[1] is interesting. It provides two fun little examples of shorter than normal proofs.
It amuses me that just as mathematicians persisted in writing out “is equal to” for decades after Recorde gave us =, there will probably continue to be holdouts who write out “if and only if” instead of using ≡ for many years to come.
[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1073.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD107...
- Y_Y 2y agoI also think "if and only if" is only surpassed by "iff" in badness of notation, though I'd like to put in a good word for classic '='. There's always some implicit inference being made about what kind of equality we're considering, and calling two formulas of logic "equal" if they have the same (truth) value in all cases is reasonable in my book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional has some nice comparisons of notation, including a mention that my old friend George Boole also used '='.