If someone were to solve one of the millenium prize problems using an end-to-end automated theorem prover, would they still win the prize?
The rules state that a prize will not be awarded if the person has not "made a major personal contribution to the understanding of the field of the problem". Simply generating a proof that may be too complex to be understood by humans would not really contribute to any understanding.
http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems
None of the millennium prize problems could be brute forced by a computer. You're barking up the wrong tree.
>>9092038
Wouldn't the theorem prover be a contribution?
>>9092049
>None of the millennium prize problems could be brute forced by a computer.
Based on the current state of the art sure, but you don't know what kind of related theorems might be known in the future.
>>9092038
I hope not. If we have been able to prove so much shit by just using words and brainpower then using computers to write our proofs would make math 100% boring.
This also ties in with a professor of mine who says that the four color theorem remains unproven kek.
>>9092038
Making an end-to-end automated theorem prover to prove millenium problems would probably be harder than solving them directly
>>9092049
You realize one of them essentially was, right?
>>9092049
>None of the millennium prize problems could be brute forced by a computer. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Why do undergrads post like this, completely just speaking out of their ass?
>cs fags think they'll be bale to prove theorems mathematicians cant
>>9092049
how does it feel to be this retarded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture