4 ms·

> Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would. 1. Does it matter, really? 2. Is it very different from previous co

> Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would. 1. Does it matter, really? 2. Is it very different from previous computer-aided proofs, philosophically?

agnishom 5mo ago
1. It matters because there are human mathematicians who pride themselves for their mathematical achievements. Mathematics is art to them. 2. Yes, it is. Because pre-LLM era computer-aided proofs were about using the computer to either solve a large number of cases or to check that each step in a proof mechanically follows from the axioms.
- snoman 5mo ago
  1. And some that are equally skilled that don’t. It matters, internally, to them but it needn’t matter to anyone else.
  - agnishom 5mo ago
    On the flip side, there are people (like me) far less skilled that do (take joy in the appreciation of mathematics as art).
layer8 5mo ago
It matters because most mathematicians thrive on the recognition of their achievements. If what you do any mediocre mathematician could have done, that takes away motivation and fulfillment.