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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:55 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |