> Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would.
1. Does it matter, really? 2. Is it very different from previous computer-aided proofs, philosophically?
> Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would.
1. Does it matter, really? 2. Is it very different from previous computer-aided proofs, philosophically?
1. It matters because there are human mathematicians who pride themselves for their mathematical achievements. Mathematics is art to them.
2. Yes, it is. Because pre-LLM era computer-aided proofs were about using the computer to either solve a large number of cases or to check that each step in a proof mechanically follows from the axioms.
It matters because most mathematicians thrive on the recognition of their achievements. If what you do any mediocre mathematician could have done, that takes away motivation and fulfillment.