I consider it good luck when I find something in the first and in the last place that I've looked (especially when I didn't know I was looking for it :)).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>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
20 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 54.8 ms ] threadAn 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.
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.
WTF?