
New Short Cut Found for Long Math Proofs (1992) - kbwt
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/07/science/new-short-cut-found-for-long-math-proofs.html?pagewanted=all
======
brinker
These types of articles are always frustrating, in that they very rarely
provide an even halfway decent explanation of the math or science involved (if
they do, it is buried deep), and are instead little more than a repetitive
explanation of the importance of the work, judged by quotes from as many
people as humanly possible. This article (which says very little) is still
probably too long with all the fluff added around the actual discovery.

~~~
klipt
If only there were a way to check the accuracy of a long article by
scrutinizing it in only a few spots...

~~~
kazinator
Unfortunately, there is only a way to check the accuracy of a long article by
scrutinizing a complicated mathematical _transformation_ of it in a few spots.

------
murbard2
This is about the PCP theorem
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCP_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCP_theorem)

An interesting application are SNARKs, a fully generic type of non interactive
zero knowledge proof of knowledge. They can be used to preserve transaction
privacy and fungibility in cryptocurrencies for instance.

------
akkartik
Is this the paper they're talking about?
[http://people.csail.mit.edu/madhu/papers/1992/almss-
conf.pdf](http://people.csail.mit.edu/madhu/papers/1992/almss-conf.pdf)

~~~
strong_ai
Yes. Note both the article and the paper are from 1992.

------
deepsun
So it's 23 years passed and are there any practical implementations that
mathematicians would use?

Since this work can be applied only to proofs that were recorded in machine-
readable format (like Mizar), I suppose it's much harder _to record_ a proof
in machine-readable format, than to really go ahead and check all the pages
manually.

~~~
pmiller2
Not that I know of, for the reasons you suggest. AFAIK nobody is seriously
using formats like Mizar when we have actual proof assistants available that
can check the proof, which kind of obviates the need to use the PCP theorem at
all.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Would there be any remaining value for such a tool in checking proofs if
already using a standard, proof-checker? Sort of a "get's it done
faster/easier" argument or perhaps like in software a "catch obvious problems
in ill-specified work earlier" sort of thing?

------
plonh
>As is the custom in mathematics and theoretical computer science, the result
gains credibility not by having been sent to a journal and reviewed by other
scientists but by having been vouched for by leaders in the field

WTF?

------
sriku
I hate to admit my inability to convince myself that this wasn't an April
fool's joke!

------
cozzyd
I never had Motwani as a professor but I've only heard good things about him.
RIP.

------
jimhefferon
Not sure why this is on the front page today.

~~~
ajkjk
Considering it's 23 years old, I think it has a roughly equal chance of being
submitted on every day - and today's the day.

~~~
jaredsohn
23 years old

~~~
ajkjk
Er, yeah. That. Fixed.

