Ryan Peterman

And on top of this, they wrote this 200-page paper in which they had to develop many more tools.

It's a very good question.

This is true for any mathematical result that is complicated.

And of course, you know that, of course, proofs of Peaver's NP and Riemann hypothesis are generated very frequently.

But some of them were generated by very serious people and took a long time to

refute in these two cases.

But others, like the Perelman proof of the Poincare conjecture, one of the clay millennium problem, million-dollar problem, was another one like that, and this took several years to verify and fix small bugs in, and books expositing this proof were written and eventually

This particular paper is for some reason still in the referring stages in the Annals of Mathematics, now probably almost six years.

It will be done.

It's robust in the sense that already new papers were written with this type of tool, in fact giving somewhat alternative proofs of the same statement and stronger statements in order to resolve other mathematical conjectures.

But yeah, it's...

It's a serious thing, and in fact the original paper had the bug, like the original paper with Fermat by Wiles, Fermat's Last Theorem, also had the bug and it was fixed.

And this was fixed, this was very early on, just when it came out very quickly fixed.

So it's, any mathematical claim,

your question is very important for.

In general, mathematics and mathematical truth is a social construct.

It's what mathematicians believe.

Maybe we are moving into a world in which we have lean proofs, we have formal way of writing proofs, and you can maybe formally verify them.

But anyway, I think that this community is...

Well, I think the theory of computer science, my field, complexity theory, algorithms, this theoretical side, is really lucky to have these two parents.