[FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

[Marcus Daniels]

One reason it could be hard to follow something is because an implication is just not there, or notation is used in a contradictory fashion.   These are that a computer just won’t tolerate.   At least convince a computer that conclusions follow from premises and then I’ll bother to spend hours on it.   A proof is just a best effort, so use machines to make it as good as it can be.

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for tomorrow

I'm not following.  What has LaTex vs Mathematica got to do with the proofs in question?

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 6:52 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
Russell writes:

< However, conversely, there appear to interesting results that indicate P=NP for random oracle machines. There is some controversy over this, though, and personally, I've never been able to follow the proofs in the area :). >

Minimally, why is LaTeX the preferred format and not, say, Mathematica?   At least the latter makes it complete and computable.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190428/1fee0395/attachment.html>