Mixing
Have there been any computer proofs that were found to contain bugs post-publication?
$begingroup$
I'm curious if there are any known examples of proofs using a computer which after being published, (in a journal or otherwise) turned out to have bugs in the software which invalidated the proof. I'm particularly interested in examples where the "proved" conjecture turned out to be false.
math-history computer-assisted-proofs
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm curious if there are any known examples of proofs using a computer which after being published, (in a journal or otherwise) turned out to have bugs in the software which invalidated the proof. I'm particularly interested in examples where the "proved" conjecture turned out to be false.
math-history computer-assisted-proofs
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm curious if there are any known examples of proofs using a computer which after being published, (in a journal or otherwise) turned out to have bugs in the software which invalidated the proof. I'm particularly interested in examples where the "proved" conjecture turned out to be false.
math-history computer-assisted-proofs
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
$endgroup$
I'm curious if there are any known examples of proofs using a computer which after being published, (in a journal or otherwise) turned out to have bugs in the software which invalidated the proof. I'm particularly interested in examples where the "proved" conjecture turned out to be false.
math-history computer-assisted-proofs
math-history computer-assisted-proofs
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
asked Jan 29 at 5:37
Ryan1729Ryan1729
1303
1303
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Not exactly the answer you are looking for but still interesting, from “New Scientist”:
In 1998 Thomas Hales submitted a computer-assisted proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611. This describes the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box, wasting as little space as possible. It appears the best arrangement resembles the stacks of oranges seen in grocery stores.
Hales’ proof is over 300 pages long and involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code. When he and his colleagues sent it to a journal for publication, 12 reviewers were assigned to check the proof. “After a year they came back to me and said that they were 99% sure that the proof was correct,” Hales says. But the reviewers asked to continue their evaluation.
However, this tiny uncertainty did not disappear with time. “After four years they came back to me and said they were still 99% sure that the proof was correct, but this time they said were they exhausted from checking the proof.”
As a result, the journal then took the unusual step of publishing the paper without complete certification from the referees (Annals of Mathematics Vol. 162, p. 1063-1183, 2005).
Also a fun to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-math-proof-largest-terabytes.html
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3091797%2fhave-there-been-any-computer-proofs-that-were-found-to-contain-bugs-post-publica%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Not exactly the answer you are looking for but still interesting, from “New Scientist”:
In 1998 Thomas Hales submitted a computer-assisted proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611. This describes the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box, wasting as little space as possible. It appears the best arrangement resembles the stacks of oranges seen in grocery stores.
Hales’ proof is over 300 pages long and involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code. When he and his colleagues sent it to a journal for publication, 12 reviewers were assigned to check the proof. “After a year they came back to me and said that they were 99% sure that the proof was correct,” Hales says. But the reviewers asked to continue their evaluation.
However, this tiny uncertainty did not disappear with time. “After four years they came back to me and said they were still 99% sure that the proof was correct, but this time they said were they exhausted from checking the proof.”
As a result, the journal then took the unusual step of publishing the paper without complete certification from the referees (Annals of Mathematics Vol. 162, p. 1063-1183, 2005).
Also a fun to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-math-proof-largest-terabytes.html
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not exactly the answer you are looking for but still interesting, from “New Scientist”:
In 1998 Thomas Hales submitted a computer-assisted proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611. This describes the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box, wasting as little space as possible. It appears the best arrangement resembles the stacks of oranges seen in grocery stores.
Hales’ proof is over 300 pages long and involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code. When he and his colleagues sent it to a journal for publication, 12 reviewers were assigned to check the proof. “After a year they came back to me and said that they were 99% sure that the proof was correct,” Hales says. But the reviewers asked to continue their evaluation.
However, this tiny uncertainty did not disappear with time. “After four years they came back to me and said they were still 99% sure that the proof was correct, but this time they said were they exhausted from checking the proof.”
As a result, the journal then took the unusual step of publishing the paper without complete certification from the referees (Annals of Mathematics Vol. 162, p. 1063-1183, 2005).
Also a fun to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-math-proof-largest-terabytes.html
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Not exactly the answer you are looking for but still interesting, from “New Scientist”:
In 1998 Thomas Hales submitted a computer-assisted proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611. This describes the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box, wasting as little space as possible. It appears the best arrangement resembles the stacks of oranges seen in grocery stores.
Hales’ proof is over 300 pages long and involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code. When he and his colleagues sent it to a journal for publication, 12 reviewers were assigned to check the proof. “After a year they came back to me and said that they were 99% sure that the proof was correct,” Hales says. But the reviewers asked to continue their evaluation.
However, this tiny uncertainty did not disappear with time. “After four years they came back to me and said they were still 99% sure that the proof was correct, but this time they said were they exhausted from checking the proof.”
As a result, the journal then took the unusual step of publishing the paper without complete certification from the referees (Annals of Mathematics Vol. 162, p. 1063-1183, 2005).
Also a fun to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-math-proof-largest-terabytes.html
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
$endgroup$
Not exactly the answer you are looking for but still interesting, from “New Scientist”:
In 1998 Thomas Hales submitted a computer-assisted proof of the Kepler conjecture, a theorem dating back to 1611. This describes the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box, wasting as little space as possible. It appears the best arrangement resembles the stacks of oranges seen in grocery stores.
Hales’ proof is over 300 pages long and involves 40,000 lines of custom computer code. When he and his colleagues sent it to a journal for publication, 12 reviewers were assigned to check the proof. “After a year they came back to me and said that they were 99% sure that the proof was correct,” Hales says. But the reviewers asked to continue their evaluation.
However, this tiny uncertainty did not disappear with time. “After four years they came back to me and said they were still 99% sure that the proof was correct, but this time they said were they exhausted from checking the proof.”
As a result, the journal then took the unusual step of publishing the paper without complete certification from the referees (Annals of Mathematics Vol. 162, p. 1063-1183, 2005).
Also a fun to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-math-proof-largest-terabytes.html
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
answered Jan 29 at 6:35
OldboyOldboy
9,05611138
9,05611138
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3091797%2fhave-there-been-any-computer-proofs-that-were-found-to-contain-bugs-post-publica%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
