"resolution of the four-color conjecture by Appel and Haken in 1976 (though it is now reproven with less need for computer verification by N. Robertson, D. P. Sanders, P. D. Seymour and R. Thomas),"
This should be rephrased. Even in the newer proof, there are still portions (in particular, the reducibility phase) which are essentially impossible for a human to verify. I vaguely remember a statistic like: 20 minutes on a desktop machine, maybe 10 years ago. So I would say, in practical terms, there is just as much need in the newer proof for computer verification as there was with the Appel + Haken proof. Also some nitpicky things.....: "something isn't done to reverse this trend" => "something is not done to reverse this trend" "the Kepler's conjecture" sounds awkward, unless I'm missing some standard usage. Either "Kepler's conjecture" or "the Kepler conjecture"? (Wikipedia uses the latter.) "defense department" => "Department of Defense" Finally, I share Tom's concerns about the sentence "No journal would make a statement like Mathematica....". I'm wondering if you could make more explicit exactly what kind of statement the journal could make, which you would consider isomorphic to Mathematica's statement. It's not quite clear to me what such a statement would be. david --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---