[FOM] Mathematical Certainty Problem
Harvey Friedman
friedman at math.ohio-state.edu
Thu Jul 3 01:32:20 EDT 2003
Reply to Baldwin 8:41PM 7/2/03.
>I am reposting Leo Marcus's note because I think many readers, those
>as uniformed as I, may have missed the
>significance. Hale's proof involves extensive computer checking.
>The paper has been accepted by the Annals
>(with an asterisk). Hales is organizing a project for further computer work.
>
>Leo Marcus wrote:
>
>>For a popular exposition of some relevant issues,
>>see the article in Nature about Hales' proof of the
>>Kepler Conjecture:
>>
>>
>>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v424/n6944/full/424012a_fs.html
>>
This is a note to clarify the relationship between the issues raised
in this article and the issues that I have been discussing in my
postings regarding "Mathematical Certainty Problem".
1. I discussed only the verification of human created proofs, and
said nothing about the verification of computer assisted proofs.
2. In the process of verification of human created proofs that I was
discussing, a human - possibly the original author, or possibly
someone else - who COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDS THE PROOF IN THE NORMAL
WAY, first provides a Lemma enriched exposition, and then gradually
turns this into a computer assisted FORMAL proof. The formal proof -
with extreme annotation - is then checked by the infallible CORE
PROOF CHECKER, which is a universally accepted standard.
3. In the process I am talking about, the original proof is
completely understood in human terms, involving no computers.
4. If one wants to extend my discussion to ORIGINALLY computer
assisted proofs, then in general one must get into the business of
formal verification of computer programs - although in some relevant
cases, this might be avoided by forcing the computer to leave
telltale tracks that can be used for special purpose verification.
Harvey Friedman
More information about the FOM
mailing list