FOM: Consensus vs Indubitability

[Don Fallis]

Shipman writes:
>rigorous proofs are indispensable, because we still demand a conventional
proof like Rabin's to establish a probability of "failure" for individual
trials bounded away from 1.

Why does our evidence that the probabilistic proof is reliable have to be a
conventional mathematical proof?  Why can't it be probabilistic proofs all
the way down - as long as the probabilistic proofs allow for consensus?

take care,
don


Don Fallis
School of Information Resources
University of Arizona