Re:Two-hundred-terabyte math proof is largest ever
by vanderZwan on Friday May 27, 2016 @10:25AM
(#11786240)
> Although the computer solution has cracked the Boolean Pythagorean triples problem, it hasn’t provided an underlying reason why the colouring is impossible, or explored whether the number 7,825 is meaningful, says Kullmann.
Kind of reminds me of why we were always taught to avoid proof by induction (the mathematical kind[0]) when possible.
Also, funny coincidence, but the shortest math paper published in a serious journal[1] was also a "no insight into why" kind of proof.
Re:Two-hundred-terabyte math proof is largest ever
by j2kun on Friday May 27, 2016 @10:58AM
(#11786432)
That's the problem with counterexample proofs, though. If something is only true for a large-but-finite range of numbers, there might not be a satisfying reason why.
Kind of reminds me of why we were always taught to avoid proof by induction (the mathematical kind[0]) when possible.
Also, funny coincidence, but the shortest math paper published in a serious journal[1] was also a "no insight into why" kind of proof.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
[1] http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/shortest-known-paper-in-a...