FOM: Reply to Machover on Conclusiveness -- addendum

[JSHIPMAN@bloomberg.net]

My example has the weakness that the proof that Rabin's algorithm behaves as
advertised is more complicated than Euclid's proof, so the subjective
uncertainty is indeed greater in the case of a statement "n is prime" that is
"proved" by running a random algorithm than in the case of the statement "for
any n there is a prime > n".  But Rabin's proof is quite easy, and so any
theorem whose proof is significantly more complicated than that is therefore
more uncertain than a statement of the form "n is prime" that is "proved" by
running Rabin's algorithm, unless you insist the subjective probability you are
mistaken really is less than 10^-300.   -- Joe Shipman