10 ms·
1. The computer is going to struggle to recognize elegance. I’m not sure it’s relevant at this point (but who knows). 2. The statement about proofs is just way
by fn-mote 2mo ago
1. The computer is going to struggle to recognize elegance. I’m not sure it’s relevant at this point (but who knows).
2. The statement about proofs is just way wrong. It doesn’t sound like you are familiar enough with them.
This isn’t exactly what you implied, but witness the very short disproof of the Jacobean Conjecture.
- gowld 2mo ago> the very short disproof of the Jacobean Conjecture. That's a counterexample (finding a needle in a haystack), not an elegant proof. Proving the conjecture would be elegant, if it were true but somehow still resisted proof nearly as much as the conjecture did because the conjecture was false.
- woopsn 2mo agoBig leaps in insight I don't think are received as elegant, generally. Fourier's contemporaries actually thought he was wrong (which he was), about both the series and heat equations, and even with the whole thing worked out it's not really straightforward. It fits into integral transforms/linear operators but in a way more complicated than can explained in those terms alone. Plus truncation error is commonly unbounded! Complex numbers and "fluxions" were also objectionable on their face although now one can frame them more or less elegantly.