

The Mathematical Opinions of Dr. Doron Zeilberger - asciilifeform
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/OPINIONS.html

======
jmatt
Yes, he is quite the character and a legitimate mathmetician^. I also looked
into him and questioned his validity after first reading his opinions.

I read a paper by him on ultrafinitism^^ a few years ago and was intrigued and
entertained.

^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doron_Zeilberger>

^^
[http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimPDF/rea...](http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/mamarim/mamarimPDF/real.pdf)

------
oconnor0
As I'm not versed in math, I wonder, are his opinions valid?

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I am versed in mathematics, and I am finding these opinions, as they are no
doubt intended to be, bloody infuriating. There are truths, no doubt, but I
think these are doing far more harm than good.

I'd like to see a computer proof of the emergence of the giant component in a
random graph process. I'd like to see a computer proof that the TSP is
equivalent to 3-coloring a graph. I'd like to see a computer proof of the
Banach-Tarski paradox.

No doubt many experiments would be shown and then the conclusions drawn
without actual proof. There is a place for experiment to create and guide
intuition, and a place for computer assistance in complex manipulations, but
to pretend that mathematicians are "clinging to pencil and paper" instead of
simply learning to use computers is laughable.

If only he weren't so eloquent and persuasive I'd be less angry.

It is also true that many things are currently done badly by people who could
do better if they were trained in skills they currently lack. There is an
application of sharpening the saw, but his implications of incompetence are
unfounded and distasteful.

~~~
Anon84
_I'd like to see a computer proof of the emergence of the giant component in a
random graph process._

Maybe this will help: <http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1549>

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
OK, I've spent literally two minutes as I'm in the middle of something urgent,
and I'll come back to it later, but my impression is that while the result is
interesting, and the authors may have used computer experiments to gain
intuition about what was happening, it's not a computer proof. It's a
tradtional proof of something that's relevant to computers.

If I'm wrong please provide a better summary so I can read it with your
insights to guide me.

