paper

What is a Theorem?

arXiv:1704.02871

Abstract

General acceptance of a mathematical proposition as a theorem requires convincing evidence that a proof of exists. But what constitutes "convincing evidence?" I will argue that, given the types of evidence that are currently accepted as convincing, it is inconsistent to deny similar acceptance to the evidence provided for the existence of proofs by certain randomized computations.

5 pages, 3 figures