[FOM] Standard Language of Euclid
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Wed Sep 30 10:23:21 EDT 2009
Andrej Bauer <andrej.bauer at andrej.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:16 PM, <joeshipman at aol.com> wrote:
> > Of course we know that some decidable theories still have open
> > questions (for example, nobody knows whether there exists a projective
> > plane of order 12). Am I correct in surmising that there is no question
> > that can be stated in the language of elementary algebra and geometry
> > which is currently regarded as both open and interesting?
>
> Alas, you are not correct.
One could have conjectured this on general principles. The existence
of a decision algorithm for a theory is rarely the end of the story.
Computational tractability is still an issue. And once your computers
and algorithms get fast enough to decide all interesting questions with,
say, 3 quantifiers, people immediately start thinking about 4 quantifiers.
Note also that the problem of finding *readable* proofs for theorems in
geometry is still alive and well. See for example
http://dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr/~narboux/area_method.html
The area method is powerful but still has its limits. For example, I
believe that the notorious Steiner-Lehmus theorem doesn't succumb to
the area method directly; a small amount of human guidance is still
needed.
Tim
More information about the FOM
mailing list