No subject

[Dave Marker]

Simpson writes
>Matiyasevic's theorem is much more
>readily understandable, because no curves or surfaces are involved.

>This explains why Matiyasevic's theorem may be called foundational,
>while the Lang conjectures may not.  This is the answer to Anand's
>implicit question.> 

I see. The real test for whether a result is foundation is if it
makes good cocktail party conversation.

As a point of fact I expect that the intelligent layman would have an
easier time understanding the statement of Falting's theorem
than Matiyasevich's.

-Dave Marker