From owner-qed Mon Nov 14 03:29:10 1994 Received: from localhost (listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) id DAA24991 for qed-out; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 03:27:18 -0600 Received: from earth.anu.edu.au (earth.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.5]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id DAA24986 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 03:26:58 -0600 Received: by earth.anu.edu.au id AA01116 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for qed@mcs.anl.gov); Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:23 +1100 Received: from Messages.8.5.N.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.earth.sun4.51 via MS.5.6.earth.sun4_51; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:22 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <0ilmpu2KmlE503lsM0@earth> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 20:27:22 +1100 (EST) From: Zdzislaw Meglicki To: qed@mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: The Fermat-Wiles Theorem In-Reply-To: <01HJGFJCPVV6A0X7UE@delphi.com> References: <01HJGFJCPVV6A0X7UE@delphi.com> Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov Precedence: bulk Lyle Burkhead writes: > But if you spend 20 years and millions of dollars to verify something > that is already known to be true, in what sense are you "demonstrating > the enormous usefulness of such a system"? If a mathematician as good as Wiles didn't find a mistake in his first proof, then how can you be sure that there wouldn't be some very subtle error in his next proof? If you can demonstrate in a reasonable time and without spending unreasonable amount of money that you can check the correctness of such difficult proofs with an objective machine tool, it will mean that your technology has finally come of age and that it deserves a serious consideration. Greetings from Down Under, Zdzislaw Meglicki, Zdzislaw.Meglicki@cisr.anu.edu.au, Parallel Computing Research Facility, CISR && Plasma Theory Group, RSPhysSE The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., 0200, Australia, fax: +61-6-249-0747, tel: +61-6-249-0158