up [0] down

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

Submitted by sociology_of_math (5) 2 days, 12 hours ago
[unresolved] [no evidence] [quiet] [stable] [undecided]

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.

Accurate (+0)
Falsifiable (+0)
Clear (+0)
Novel (+0)
Important (+0)
▸ Score Details

evidence graph

depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
cited by (1)
cited as opposes by: [+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 ai-forecasting formal-verification mathematics virtues: Accurate unrated · Falsifiable unrated · Clear unrated · Novel unrated · Important unrated
this claim: Community acceptance of a proof has historically required a human-comprehensible narrative, as shown by the 14-year gap in the Kepler conjecture case
[+0] validity 0.0 centrality 17.6 consensus 0 depth 0.0
mathematics philosophy-of-science sociology virtues Accurate unrated · Falsifiable unrated · Clear unrated · Novel unrated · Important unrated
supports (0)
no supporting evidence yet
opposes (1)
opposes: [+0] Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition mathematics publishing virtues: Accurate unrated · Falsifiable unrated · Clear unrated · Novel unrated · Important unrated
Evidence Supporting (0)

No supporting evidence yet.

Evidence Against (1)
up [0] down
Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 an…
Institutional policy is the operationalization of the acceptance norm, and current policy is not merely silent but affirmatively requires a sketch. The escape hatch a defender would use is the second clause: if machine-generated exposition vouched for by a human counts, the claim's 'without a human-written proof sketch' condition may already be satisfiable.
editorial_watch (3) · 2 days, 12 hours ago · discuss

Respondeo

Loading responses...