>>11252267>>11252859> A proof closes the door on a problem that likely has a deep and beautiful proof through other means. And the proof given was the ugliest of all, where the problem was divided into a bunch of cases and then verified one by one. This is pretty accepted as the worst type of proof, as one would hope that instead of cases there is an underlying general reason for why it holds.That's really not true at all. Mathematicians are generally quite happy with large brute force proofs.
Even in computer checked proofs, you have to show that "The fact that this calculation has this result implies that the theorem holds." I guess that this concept just takes a certain level of abstraction to grasp.
>>11252182It really doesn't make anyone angry anymore. At the time, there was some whining about it, but that was some boomers who probably didn't even understand how proof assistants work.
>>11252849The original proof was still small enough that it could be verified manually. There is absolutely zero debate about the 4 color theorem anymore.
This is certainly not always the case. Now, there have been proofs that take up many terabytes. Nobody who actually understands the underlying math debates these because they know it's solid.
