Comment by fhdkweig
6 days ago
That was terrible phrasing. I meant "The problem with the proof was that although it showed that FCT was true, the proof did not explain why".
6 days ago
That was terrible phrasing. I meant "The problem with the proof was that although it showed that FCT was true, the proof did not explain why".
Yeah. On a similar note, without the computer aspect, I once had a prof tell me that he did not like character theory. If I remember right, there you calculate some numbers from a group and can prove some properties about it. But you gain no understanding of why those properties hold.
> the proof did not explain why
So humans do/did still have a role to play
Something as simple as the FCT may have an alternative intuitive proof that humans can relate to.
I do not think it is a given that humans or algorithms can find such a proof for any given problem.
My layman understanding of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is that you are correct. It states that there are things that are true but no proof can exist (providable by human or AI provers).
Unless the existence of the reason is also proved.
Unless AI can explain why today.
I mean, I guess we still need people for the AI to explain it to.