tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post111238844733381501..comments2024-04-08T04:56:51.603-06:00Comments on The Geomblog: ProofsSuresh Venkatasubramanianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15898357513326041822noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6555947.post-1112615129940799662005-04-04T05:45:00.000-06:002005-04-04T05:45:00.000-06:00"I am skeptical whether mathematicians will be wil..."I am skeptical whether mathematicians will be willing to trust a computer over their own intuition."<BR/><BR/>(Raises hand) Excuse me?<BR/><BR/>I'm not. I don't know of a single professional graph theorist who has serious doubts about Robertson, Seymour, and Thomas' proof off the four-color theorem (strangely absent from the Economist article), or any discrete geometer who has serious doubts about Hales' proof of the Kepler Conjecture (except, perhaps, Hsiang). Apparently, the doubts over Appel and Haken's (not "Harken") proof were not aimed at the many cases that were checked by computer, but rather, the actual breakdown into cases, which was done 'by hand'.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps computer scientists are less willing to accept computer-assisted proofs than most mathematicians, simply because we understand better how difficult it can be to get a computer to do ANYTHING correctly. Computer scientists are notorious Luddites.<BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://3dpancakes.typepad.com/ernie/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="jeffe at cs dot uiuc dot edu">Jeff Erickson</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com