Comment by doodlebugging

>they're mathematics and as such represent a logical trueism

I'm a full pot in now and find that I agree with this.

The fact is though that the article demonstrates that something previously considered logically true or a maximum likelihood was proven false.

It's great to see that there are people, whether they're mathematicians or cryptographers, who will take a look at something that has been a useful part of a stable process of verification and try to find cracks or instabilities. The fact that they found an edge case that could be exploitable undermines trust in an important part of the process.

Trust - but verify, wins again. Logically, this is the best way.