[FOM] Formally verifying "checkers is a draw"
Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Mon Aug 11 10:24:35 EDT 2014
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Josef Urban wrote:
> I do not think anybody argues that computer verification gives a 100%
> certainty.
Right. I wonder, though, whether the frequency of errors in the
mathematical literature (paper or electronic) is limited less by physical
errors of the type you mentioned than by "risk compensation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
After all, if mathematicians really cared enough, then the error rate in
the conventional literature could presumably be driven down significantly
below its current value, even without machine assistance. I don't think
we're at the limit of human capability to keep errors out of published
journal articles. The reality is that we don't care *that* much about an
error-free corpus of mathematics. We have a certain risk tolerance, and
under certain circumstances prefer to tolerate a certain probability of
error than to invest herculean amounts of labor to drive that probability
down.
I speculate that a similar effect will come into play after formally
verified mathematics becomes commonplace. The cost of re-verification
will gradually rise to the point where people will prefer to accept the
risk of an error, rather than expend the necessary computer time. So the
eventual limiting factor will not be technological but sociological---just
as it is now. (This is not to say that formal verification won't drive
down the error rate, just that it won't be driven down as low as a
calculation of hardware error rates might naively suggest.)
Tim
More information about the FOM
mailing list