|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
I would have to say YES as you could potentially use the
proof to shortcut the process but i do not have a PhD in Mathematics so i may be
way off here
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
The proof has not yet been validated.
Many such complex proofs are eventually shown to have problems - but even then
they may point to new methods.
And I don't claim deep knowledge of such abstract math either.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
I do have a PhD in math, although I'm not active in the field.
I can say *if* the popular press is accurate, then the proof is not valid. I
think it's safe to assume that the popular press is the weak link here. They
seem to be confusing philosophy of mathematics with mathematics itself. If the
proof were to rely on a particular philosophy of mathematics, then it will not
be accepted.
If the proof is valid, then it will likely have impact on cryptography, but at
this point, it's impossible to say what that impact will be. It may be
significant, but then again, maybe not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
