Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:10:20 +0200
jstevh@xxxxxxx writes:
Computer science people can listen with amazement as mathematicians
and other math people go on and on about how computers can't
comprehend mathematics, knowing what I know, computers can do
it--but math people don't want to be checked objectively.
James, this is just a plain lie and you know it.
A mathematical proof expressed in formal logic is easy to verify by
computer.
Proofs written in natural language, like the kind published in books
and papers, cannot be verified by a computer at this date.
Mathematicians don't write purely formal proofs because they are
tedious and very, very difficult to read. Proofs are supposed to
instruct and purely formal proofs are very bad at this.
Translating natural language proofs to formal proofs is slow and
tedious and must be done by hand at present.
If you can find any computer scientist who claims that he has a
program that can translate the proofs in a mathematics text into
formal proofs, then verification will be simple. But this task is not
for mathematicians. It is computer scientists (and linguists) who
know about translating natural language to formal language.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Dead men can't talk. Especially when they've been cremated."
--- From the 1944 radio program "Adventures By Morse"
.
- References:
- JSH: Learning consensus
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: Rupert
- Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Learning consensus
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Next by Date: Re: Optimizing Rectangle for Perimeter
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Learning consensus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
