Pure Maths in Crisis?
I think articles like this are hilarious because they act like written down proofs are a gold standard of unassailable logic. Of course they aren&#x27;t - what constitutes proof to one person (or in one age) may or may not constitute proof to others. Look at Mochizuki&#x27;s work - someone so convinced they are right, and yet no one else can understand it:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-biggest-mystery-in-mathematics-shinichi-mochizuki-and-the-impenetrable-proof-1.18509" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-biggest-mystery-in-mathemati...</a><p>Another good example: Euler&#x27;s proofs in his day would be failed in even a basic real analysis class now.<p>Having known many many pure mathematicians, I believe that they don&#x27;t want to use computers for the simple reason that many of them don&#x27;t know how to, and thus denying the legitimacy of computer-generated (or assisted) proofs protects their livelihood&#x2F;careers.