Xref: utzoo comp.theory:849 sci.logic:884 sci.math:11691
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!midway!ncar!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!emory!hubcap!steve
From: steve@hubcap.clemson.edu ("Steve" Stevenson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re^6: Question About the Four Color Proof
Message-ID: <9668@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 90 12:57:33 GMT
References: <786@qusunu.queensu.CA> <9615@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1212@s8.Morgan.COM> <9649@hubcap.clemson.edu> <27018@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 23

aaron@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:

>What makes you think that the program is any more or less proven
>than other parts of this or other proofs?

The non-computer piece seems to have been check for whatever. However, the
program has not been subjected to such scrutiny ( the deMillo argument
against proofs).

> The algorithm is certainly ... [possibility of an implementation mistake]
> I'd say this is much less likely than the possibility of an ordinary
>mathematical nonsequitur in the main part of the proof,
> especially since the algorithm has been reimplemented and rerun.


And rederived, also, or just recoded?


-- 
===============================================================================
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906