Slashdot Mirror
The End of Mathematical Proofs by Humans?
vivin writes "I recall how I did a bunch of Mathematical Proofs when I was in high school. In fact, proofs were an important part of Math according to the CBSE curriculum in Indian Schools. We were taught how to analyze complex problems and then break them down into simple (atomic) steps. It is similar to the derivation of a Physics formula. Proofs form a significant part of what Mathematicians do. However, according to this article from the Economist, it seems that the use of computers to generate proofs is causing mathematicians to 're-examine the foundations of their discipline.' However, critics of computer-aided proofs say that the proofs are hard to verify due to the large number of steps and hence, may be inherently flawed. Defenders of the same point out that there are non computer-aided proofs that are also rather large and unverifiable, like the Classification of Simple Finite Groups. Computer-aided proofs have been instrumental in solving some vexing problems like the Four Color Theorem."
In the past, I've used the HOL Theorem Prover. It's a nice toy to play with if want to get started in this area.
Please login to access my lawn
If you take a grad school AI course, they'll make you do proofs the way a computer does it... maybe using propositional logic. The idea is to break up the problem into a set of statements that looks quite ridiculous (e.g. NOT engine AND train AND NOT moving), and then taking pairs of these statements and mixing and matching. The result is that you determine your sequence steps by simple trial and error or by trying to combine the propositional symbols (AND, NOT etc) and the variables (train etc). Once you generate a proof, its just a list of such statements which evaluates to a FALSE or a TRUE value but if you want to understand the proof, its hopeless.
I doubt the human proof system will go away completely - even if we can check nasty theorem proofs using computers, we still need humans to sit and explain what they mean.
I don't want to read
- Logical problems with proofs for correctness. For example, it has been proven that no program can prove itself correct.
- Correctness proofs are hard to do and incredibly tedious. Have you ever tried it? And no, you can't have a program do them, because you'd have to prove this program correct, which sends you right back to square #1.
- You'd have to prove all sorts of other factors correct, including the operating system and hardware your program is running on. This leads to another set of interesting problems, including that "correct hardware" is useful only as a theoretical concept. What's a "correct computer" if there's a small probability that bits will spontaneously flip in memory, for example?
In short: while it might seem elegant to prove the prover, then have everything else proved by this prover, this approach has little value in practice.As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
So the question is - how are we going to prove/disprove a computer program that proves a theorem? Program complexity has meant that all but the most trivial programs cannot be 'proven'.
The solution, it seems to me, is per the article: get the s/w to output a series of steps using formal logic. Any series of formal logic steps should be confirmable by a 'formal logic validator', and that is the only program we need to prove correct. That will be non-trivial, but will then open the floodgates to any hacked up piece of code to be used to generate provable logic.
There you are, staring at me again.
- An abc (not THE abc, just one)
- formulas
- derivation rules
An axiom is just a derivation rule which derives from the empty set.Basically, a proof is, according to the axiomatic method, is just a non-infinite sequence of formulas, which can be created by the allowed derivation rules. The whole point is that a proof for A HUMAN, and mathematical proof is different. The axiomatic system is not perfect, either. The whole Hilbert-plan is proven to be impossible to be done, thus it is not possible to prove that there are no contradictions in the axiomatic system
I think the "MUI" axiom system is commonly used to demonstrate how it works, basically. It is too lengthy, and i'm lazy.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
If mathematical proofs were "nothing but a manner of convincing someone", how could it be verifiable by a computer?
Fully formal mathematical proofs depend on nothing but ability to distinguish characters, to compare text strings, and to perform substring substitution.
To your example (2 + 2 = 4). In formal arithmetics, based on Peano axioms, there is one primary operator, let's call it s:N -> N, and s(n) is interpreted as (n + 1). "2" is _defined_ as s(1). 3 is defined as s(2), and 4 is defined as s(3). So one has to prove that s(1) + s(1) = s(s(s(1))).
By definition of addition (remember, addition is not fundamental notion in the formal arithmetics, it's defined in terms of s-operator), a + s(b) = s(a + b), and a + 1 = s(a), so we have
s(s(1) + 1) = s(s(s(1))),
s(s(s(1))) = s(s(s(1)))
Q.E.D.
So, where proof above depends on anything but mechanically verifiable string manipulations?
P.S., of course mathematical formulae are not strings, but rather trees, but this doesn't change a bit.
Well, Economist should learn some REAL math. The first thing they should learn is math logic.
It has been PROVEN (and it's a well-known fact) that it's impossible to create a Turing machine which will determine if a given expression is true or false (see Incompleteness theorem for details).
For example, it's impossible to find answer to CH (continuum hypotesis) in ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel + Choice axiomatics).
In short: some problems can't be solved in existing theories, they require creating a new theories with new axioms. It's non-formalizable process (it's also proven), so no computer can do this.
Yes but a "correct mathematical proof" only establishes truth relative to the axiom system used. Because how will you ever prove that the axioms are true? (That's why they're called axioms---you cannot prove them and just have to assume the're "true".) In other words, there's no such thing as "absolute truth". (This is what Hilbert meant when he defined mathematics as "Mathematics is that subject in which we do not know what we are talking about, nor whether what we say is true.")
In fact Ramanujan thought he had a proof, which would have been doable using only things known in Fermat's day and was short elegant and pretty.
;-/
Unfortunately, as Hardy pointed out, that proof assumed that all Quadratic extensions of the rational numbers are Unique Factorisation domains - which isn't true
It seems very likely that Fermat's proof was probably of a very similar sort.
James P. Barrett
Mathematicians think they know what Fermat thought was the "proof" that he could not fit in the margin, since Fermat used a similar strategy for another problem. Euler was the one who used Fermat's strategy on Fermat's last theorem explicitly, and showed that it did not give a full proof as Fermat had hoped. It might be that Fermat himself tried and then gave up, or that he was happy to have "solved it" and looked for other things to prove.
I think you (and most people) misunderstand the reason Fermat's last theorem has such a central place in math history. But first lets discuss the reason why the problem became so well known; it is because it is such an easy problem to state and to understand, still no one has been able to use "simple" math to prove it. Even Fermat himself thought the problem should be fairly straigth forward to solve, and it has made generations of people with curiosity for math look for proofs and even thinking they have found one. It is also a problem some of the greatest minds of math did not manage to solve. Fermat, Euler, Lagrange, Gauss, Abel, Riemann, etc have all had a try and did not solve it. Which math wanna-be wouldn't want to solve something this group of people did not manage?
Now, even though this has made Fermat's problem something that has created a lot of publicity, the number one reason Fermat's problem has been important, is because of all the beautiful maths that have been discovered by mathematicians trying to solve it. Fermat's theorem in itself is not interesting. It is not like the Riemann hypothesis, which if proven to be false, will make much of modern maths not true or at least force mathematicians to look for new proofs. This is because you can prove much interesting stuff if you assume the Riemann's hypothesis is true, problem is of course, this is not yet proven. If Fermat's theorem was been shown to be not true, that would have been suprising, but would not made large parts of maths collapse.
So, the modern proof of Fermat's theorem is the end of a long journey which has lead to some very deep mathematical knowledge, and in a way, Wiles' proof is much more interesting in its own right than that it also proofs that Fermat was right in his guess. A "simple" proof (watch out when mathematicians use the word simple or trivial) of Fermat's problem would give undeniable bragging rights, since you could say you solved a problem Gauss couldn't solve with the maths Gauss knew. But again, it probably would be more of a huge accomplishment for one person than a huge breakthrough in maths.
A last comment; the reason Wiles' proof is long is not because math is verbose, far from it . It is because Wiles is able to connect what would seem to be two unconnected branches of mathematics, showing that problems in one of the branches can be restated as problems in the other. This is not something you do in a few pages. And the importance of it becomse clear, if you consider that what can be an unsolveable problem in the one branch of maths might be reformulated as a solveable problem in the other. Math is always about trying to find ways to solve something as simply as possible. Not something computers is very good at, so no Abel prize to Big Blue for a while I think.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
It is quite a large step to go from raw computing power to intteligence. Sure computers will eventually have way more processing power than we humans do..hell they do right now if you assign them to a certain task, but that is a far cry from being intellent. With that said I do side with the camp that says computers will do most mathematical proofs in the coming decades...why? Because researchers will find a way to get computers focused on this task...and as I already mentioned computers are way more powerful than our brains on a focused task.
If you can't independently examine and verify your "proof" then how can it be considered proof of anything?
That's easy. Speaking as a PhD mathematician, there's nothing disturbing at all about these computer proofs. They're examples in which a computer was programmed to generate a perfectly standard proof, except that it's extremely long.
Checking the proof is not hard: it suffices to verify that the program emits only correct inferences. That's nothing more than a standard human-generated proof. In addition, a verifier can be coded by someone other than the original author, to check the validity of the inferences generated by the first program. The checker's algorithm can also be verified using a standard human proof, and would be used to confirm that a bug didn't result in an incorrect proof.
Note that Gödel's incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with these programs: they don't generate all possible proofs. They only generate one specific type of proof per program. Each program is easy to verify.
You could call the software correctness proofs "meta-proofs", but that's just being coy. They're perfectly legitimate proofs, and they are sufficient to prove the correctness of proofs generated by the program.
Wrong.
The theorem says that there are either true unprovable things or things that are both provable and provable to be false. An interesting formal system is either incomplete or contradictory (it can be both, but it doesn't have to).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.