Talk:Computer-assisted proof

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

I find this statement interesting: "Interestingly, this controversy within mathematics is occurring at the same time as questions are being asked in the physics community about whether twenty-first century theoretical physics is becoming too mathematical, and leaving behind its experimental roots." but there is no reference for it. I'm not sure that it NEEDS a reference, but I'm just curious for further reading if anyone has any information on this "controversy". Jackkoho (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be merged with Automated theorem proving? S Sepp 14:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but we can probably merge with Interactive theorem proving Outs 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's expanded this to a reasonably-sized stub. Can someone with more knowledge in this area improve and polish this article, please? -- Anon.

I'm not a huge fan of the body of this article. It's a discussion of arguments against computer aided proofs and counterarguments.-Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.200.63 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an "in need of attention from an expert" flag be in order? Based on the previous version of this article I cited Kepler's conjecture as a thm proved by computer and was corrected by an expert: apparently (a) the originally announced proof used a highly-optimised computer program in a way which made it all but impossible to verify (b) a project to produce a computer proof is in progress, but not near finishing. I have tried to change the article to avoid giving anyone else the same mistaken impression I got, but I fear there might be other similar mistakes, and I am not able to check. (The expert who corrected me is certainly too busy right now to be harnessed, though I might try some time!) Educres (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Seventeen or Bust from this page because it's not a computer-assisted proof, per se, in the sense that once the necessary prime numbers have been found the proof is easy to state and verify succinctly without the aid of a computer; it's merely being used to accelerate the search phase. Dcoetzee 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this ancient topic. The page is about "computer-*assisted* proof," which it says is a proof "that has been at least partially generated by computer." The page goes on to say that "Most computer-aided proofs to date have been implementations of large proofs-by-exhaustion of a mathematical theorem." Surely Seventeen or Bust is an example of this: the project is exhaustively searching for a Sierpiński number smaller than 78,557. WillisBlackburn (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page also says "Inclusion in this list does not imply that a formal computer-checked proof exists, but rather, that a computer program has been involved in some way." WillisBlackburn (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of computer assisted theorem ends in 1998. Any idea what happened? Are mathematicians getting distracted playing with iphones now? Any ideas about the dry spell? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer-assisted proof. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121000707/http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/your-own-maths-theorem-for-15-1.1068654 to http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/your-own-maths-theorem-for-15-1.1068654

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]