Computers and mathematical demonstrations

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ryokan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computers Mathematical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of computers in mathematical demonstrations, comparing traditional proofs with those generated or assisted by computational methods. It explores the implications of computer-generated proofs, such as the four-color theorem and the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, and considers the future of mathematical proof methodologies, including the potential of genetic algorithms.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express admiration for A. Wiles' work on Fermat's theorem and the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, suggesting these represent different methodologies in mathematics.
  • There is a belief that analytical proof is necessary before accepting computer-generated proofs, particularly emphasizing the need to verify that all cases have been checked in algorithms like those used for the four-color theorem.
  • One participant notes that outputs from computer algebra systems, such as Mathematica and Magma, are increasingly accepted as proofs, citing the algorithm for computing digits of pi as an example.
  • Another participant raises the question of whether advancements in certain mathematical areas are dependent on the development of software, pondering if progress would stall without computers.
  • There is curiosity about the current role of genetic algorithms in aiding mathematical research and proof generation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of computer proofs versus traditional proofs, with some advocating for the necessity of analytical verification while others suggest that certain computational outputs are becoming accepted as valid proofs.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the need for finite case verification in computer proofs and the potential limitations of current methodologies, but do not resolve these issues.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to mathematicians, computer scientists, and those exploring the intersection of computational methods and mathematical proof theory.

ryokan
Messages
252
Reaction score
5
I was impressed by the work of A. Wiles on the last Fermat's theorem, with the demonstration of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture.

On the other hand, I think it is very interesting the demonstration of the four colours theorem by means of a lot of computer's work.

It seems to me that these two examples are very different forms of mathematic methodology.

What would be the future of "demonstration" by computer? Would it be a true demonstration? I am thinking in the potential power of genetic algorithms in this respect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think there will always be a lot to be proved analytically prior to accepting the validity of a "computer proof":
Typically, as in the 4-colour theorem, you'll need to prove that there is a finite number of cases involved, and that the proposed algorithm necessarily will check every case.

Possibly, there might exist other types of problems in which the validity of a "computer proof" is proven analytically beyond doubt , but I don't know of any such types as yet.
 
Take as an example computer algebra systems. Mathematica and Magma outputs are already (somewhat) accepted as proofs... for example, IIRC, the current best algorithm for computing digits of pi (in base 16) was proved using mathematica.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BBPFormula.html
 
Thank you arildno and Hurkyl. :smile:
Then it is conceivable that development of some mathematical areas be linked, in a dependent form, to the development of software?Or in simplistic terms: whithout computers, no more advances in a mathematical region ?

Other question: what is the actual role of genetic algorithms as aid to Math ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K