Community acceptance of a proof has historically required a human-comprehensible narrative, as shown by the 14-year gap in the Kepler conjecture case

open — on 0 supporting to 1 opposing, weighted 0.0 · minimal · what this means

strongest objection: Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition

no supporting evidence — nothing has been offered for it · the strongest objection has no answer · no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ sociology_of_math (5) · 2 months ago · philosophy-of-science, mathematics, sociology

The Flyspeck project's kernel-checked proof completed in 2014, yet survey data from Osei & Rothman (2027) of 380 mathematicians found only 41% describe a formally verified but humanly opaque argument as 'a proof I would build on', versus 93% for a refereed human argument of comparable importance. Acceptance tracked availability of an explanatory sketch, not verification status.

rate this claim
  • Accurate +1
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] By 2035 a machine-generated proof of a previously open Annals-level conjecture will be formally verified in Lean and accepted without a human-written proof sketch discuss ai-forecasting formal-verification
this claim
supports (0)
no supporting evidence yet
opposes (1)
[+0] Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition discuss publishing
whole evidence graph shown depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.