Isn't the whole point of the field of mathematics in a theoretical sense the pursuit of formal solutions?
So, why would they be advocating for limitations on arriving at solutions?
Isn't the whole point of the field of mathematics in a theoretical sense the pursuit of formal solutions?
So, why would they be advocating for limitations on arriving at solutions?
It's more nuanced than this. Peter Scholze said in response to this declaration:
> The goal of mathematical research is human understanding of mathematics, and so mathematics can only thrive in a community of human mathematicians. It is crucial to preserve this communal spirit. [0]
Terence Tao has also talked about the requirement for a mathematical proof: along with generation and formal verification, there is an important step of "proof digestion"
> understanding the essence of a solution, placing it in context with previous literature, summarizing and explaining it effectively, and gaining insights on other related problems and topics [1]
[0]: https://siliconreckoner.substack.com/p/the-leiden-declaratio...
[1]: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/116450581967483825
And the goal of computer mathematics research is computer understanding of mathematics. I fail to see a reason provided as to why society should defund automated reasoning just so mathematicians can put off burger flipping for another year.
Solve it and understand it; seems intuitive to me.
I don't understand how that contradicts my question.
You will find your answer in the article