Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc13!ln63wgq
From: ln63wgq@sdcc13.ucsd.EDU (Keith Messer)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem apparently proven
Message-ID: <1009@sdcc13.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 15 Mar 88 03:56:11 GMT
References: <977@thumper.bellcore.com> <7440@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26797@linus.UUCP> <7449@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26822@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: ln63wgq@sdcc13.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Keith Messer)
Organization: Univ. of California, San Diego
Lines: 20

In article <26822@linus.UUCP> bs@linus.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>By your logic we should assume
>that if most people believe a theorem is true we should just accept it even
>if a proof is lacking. Mathematics doesn't work that way.
> 
>I think you are being deliberately obtuse and pedantic. What has BELIEF
>in the RH got to do with primality PROOF? We have fast probabalistic 
>tests now. RH makes those tests into proofs.


You know, that's my logic too, Bob.  A mathematical (even if we have to call
it mathematical) property is useful whether or not it is proven.  Supposing
I find some regularity in a mathematical system by induction (but in a case
where mathematical induction is not adequete proof) and decide to write a
program to do analysis based on that regularity.  Either the program will
succeed and be useful to me or it will fail, disproving my hypothesis.  The
point is that I win either way.

					Keith
					ln63wgq%sdemlab@sdcsvax