It better not have 100s of individually checked configurations
Edit: damn it.
I was just thinking last night about the four color theorem in the context of the recent Navier-Stokes drama, and Tao's Mastodon post on the uselessness of inscrutable computer-generated formalizations. I would love for an AI company find a proof of the four-color theorem without individually checked configurations, and optimize it for human comprehensibility.
> "Georges Gonthier, a computer scientist at Inria in Paris"
somehow the article forgets to mention he was the guy who came up with the first Coq (now Rocq) formal proof of the Four Color Theorem..
It better not have 100s of individually checked configurations
Edit: damn it.
I was just thinking last night about the four color theorem in the context of the recent Navier-Stokes drama, and Tao's Mastodon post on the uselessness of inscrutable computer-generated formalizations. I would love for an AI company find a proof of the four-color theorem without individually checked configurations, and optimize it for human comprehensibility.
> The proof — ... — is in some ways even more complicated than its predecessors.
Damn it in deed.
But perhaps it will open a door to new proofs? Perhaps in other areas?
I would love to have a unicorn pegasus, but some things might just be impossible.
Even something as simple as the computer you are posting from is not optimized for human comprehensibilty, in its full detail.