Received: (from listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10)
	id GAA16661 for qed-out; Wed, 3 May 1995 06:12:20 -0500
Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu (root@gold.tc.umn.edu [128.101.115.11]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10)  with SMTP
	id GAA16653 for <qed@mcs.anl.gov>; Wed, 3 May 1995 06:10:47 -0500
Received: from dialup-1-33.gw.umn.edu by gold.tc.umn.edu; Wed, 3 May 95 06:10:37 -0500
X-Sender: inman002@gold.tc.umn.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: ma_friesel@ccmail.pnl.gov
From: inman002@gold.tc.umn.edu (Eric Inman)
Subject: Probabilistic Proofs
Cc: qed@mcs.anl.gov
X-Mailer: <PC Eudora Version 1.4>
Message-Id: <2fa764ae435e002@gold.tc.umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 May 95 06:10:39 -0500
Sender: owner-qed@mcs.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: 799510200.005

>One solution may be to create probablistic proofs for problems which are
>beyond the capabilities of an otherwise 'best' implementable proof engine.
>... I seem to recall reading something along the lines of such proofs, but
>I find no reference at hand.

Probabilistic proofs are mentioned on pp. 102,3 of "The Death of Proof," 
Scientific American, October, 1993.