On 20 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ? >> I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it >> should be possible to devise two independent different proof checker... if >> these proof checker are smaller than the proof itself (and they should be), >> then it will be easier to prove that they are correct, and if they agree on >> the proof itself, we should really be confident that the proof is correct, >> even if not checked manually by a human. >> > > Unless of course the computers are already conspiring together to deploy > phase two of their insidious plan to create total human dependence on them > prior to their extermination ;) > > "I'm sorry, Craig, I'm afraid you can't post that." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
