[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Mathematica Prove[...] Command Possible?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg127930] Re: Mathematica Prove[...] Command Possible?
*From*: danl at wolfram.com
*Date*: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 04:35:22 -0400 (EDT)
*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
*References*: <k1s9t5$ogb$1@smc.vnet.net>
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 1:28:51 AM UTC-5, amzoti wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have always been curious if Mathematica has ever considered a Prove command?
>
>
>
> The reason one could ask such is question is simple, who would have ever thought that CASs would get to where they are in such a relatively short period of time.
>
>
>
> Certainly, this is a tall order, but the richness we already see in Mathematica leads one to believe that this can be a new area for CAS development.
>
>
>
> Some easy examples could be Prove[ Sqrt[2], Irrational], Prove[ Exp[x], Transcendental], Prove[Sum[i, {i, 1, n}]== n(n+1)/2]...
>
>
>
> Certainly, there would be many limitations with proofs in some branches of Mathematics. I suppose getting to meatier proofs is problematic in itself, but maybe a certain rigor in defining the problem can be mapped out that follows how we set problems up today (as there is a pretty consistent way to specifying problems that most mathematicians adhere to).
>
>
>
> Anyway, why has this not been attempted (as a comparison, I have seen like DC Proof)? In the end, maybe it is just not a goal for a CAS.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your time.
See:
http://www.risc.jku.at/research/theorema/description/
Daniel
Prev by Date:
**Re: How to create links or bookmarks to jump to sections inside a notebook**
Next by Date:
**Re: Is there documentation of the format of a "sound object"**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Mathematica Prove[...] Command Possible?**
Next by thread:
**Re: Mathematica Prove[...] Command Possible?**
| |