You may have not understood at all what you have read.
Your quotation is attributed in the article to Bill Tutte, as his response to what shall do a mathematician when seeing computer-made mathematical proofs, “Be of good cheer. You can continue in the same general line of research" and that the first computer-made proof "is the tip of the iceberg, the thin end of the wedge and the first cuckoo of Spring".
For your information, in some European countries hearing a cuckoo was a traditional sign that the spring has come, in the ancient times when there were no meteorological prognoses, so like the other 2 comparisons it is appropriate for the first step of a progression.
I see nothing disgusting in this. It is just good advice that one should accept that computer-made proofs are here to stay and there will be more and more of them.
If you're going to make such a ludicrous-seeming claim, the least you could do is explain yourself rather than leave us guessing as to how on earth the post has anything to do with child porn. Or, as someone else put it:
Did we read the same article? You’re quoting from the end, so it seems like you did at least skim the article. But this article has nothing to do with child porn? Where did you even get that idea? It’s talking about a famous mathematical proof.
You may have not understood at all what you have read.
Your quotation is attributed in the article to Bill Tutte, as his response to what shall do a mathematician when seeing computer-made mathematical proofs, “Be of good cheer. You can continue in the same general line of research" and that the first computer-made proof "is the tip of the iceberg, the thin end of the wedge and the first cuckoo of Spring".
For your information, in some European countries hearing a cuckoo was a traditional sign that the spring has come, in the ancient times when there were no meteorological prognoses, so like the other 2 comparisons it is appropriate for the first step of a progression.
I see nothing disgusting in this. It is just good advice that one should accept that computer-made proofs are here to stay and there will be more and more of them.
[flagged]
If you're going to make such a ludicrous-seeming claim, the least you could do is explain yourself rather than leave us guessing as to how on earth the post has anything to do with child porn. Or, as someone else put it:
What the actual fuck are you talking about??
Did we read the same article? You’re quoting from the end, so it seems like you did at least skim the article. But this article has nothing to do with child porn? Where did you even get that idea? It’s talking about a famous mathematical proof.
What the actual fuck are you talking about??