*proofs*in mathematics (e.g., "Trust me, I have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, just wait a second..."). Why the double standard? Do we shackle ourselves by using a fragment of mathematics that disallows (we hope) non-terminating proofs? Or have we been too hasty to accept non-terminating programs? The latter stance is embraced in total functional programming. But I think the former is also not super crazy. With a more interactive notion of proof, potential non-termination would not be so dangerous.

**Z:** "I have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, can you add it to the Book?"**E:** "Of course, but first can you tell me how you handle this tricky case?" *E presents tricky case to Z***Z:** "Sure, no problem, this case is easily handled by, um, some math, er, ..."*Z stalls**E waits patiently, but keeps the Book firmly shut*

In some sense, terminating proofs are just a time-saving mechanism for referees. It would indeed be a shame if Z wasted all of E's time with this pseudoproof of RH. On the other hand, E could be doing other things at the same time, such as drinking coffee, or running SETI@Home.

## No comments:

Post a Comment