Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!jurjen
From: jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen N.E. Bos)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem apparently proven
Message-ID: <7521@boring.cwi.nl>
Date: 15 Mar 88 09:01:16 GMT
References: <977@thumper.bellcore.com> <7440@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26797@linus.UUCP> <7449@brl-smoke.ARPA> <26822@linus.UUCP> <1009@sdcc13.ucsd.EDU>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 25

In article <1009@sdcc13.ucsd.EDU> ln63wgq@sdcc13.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Keith Messer) writes:
>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 adequate 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


I think you're missing something here. Your program NEVER will succeed, 
because there is an infinity of cases. It can only fail. If you want to
prove something, you need a proof, not a 'convincing' number of tries.
Of course your program can fail, unproving your assumption (so you only
win if you make weird assumptions! :-))

If you want to be sure, PROVE. You can assume things, but this will only
partially sovle your problems. If I use the Riemann Hypothesis in an 
article, I will clearly say that I use an unproven hypothesis.
	-- Jurjen
-- 
  -- Jurjen N.E. Bos (jurjen@cwi.nl)