BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:ILLC Website
X-WR-TIMEZONE:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:19700329T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:19701025T030000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:/NewsandEvents/Archives/2022/newsitem/14011/2-
 December-2022-Cool-Logic-Katia-Parshina
DTSTAMP:20221128T143620
SUMMARY:Cool Logic, Katia Parshina
ATTENDEE;ROLE=Speaker:Katia Parshina
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20221202T170000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20221202T190000
LOCATION:Room TBA, Science Park 904, Amsterdam
DESCRIPTION:"In 1977, the first computer-assisted 
 proof of a mathematical theorem was presented by K
 . Appel and W. Haken. The proof was met with a lot
  of criticism from both mathematicians and philoso
 phers. The arguments against acceptance of compute
 r-assisted proofs vary: it is not verifiable by hu
 man beings because it is impossible to survey; the
  actions performed by a computer do not constitute
  mathematical proof, but merely a number of calcul
 ations; the method does not contribute to the exis
 ting mathematical practice, etc. I present some ex
 amples of computer-assisted proofs, including Appe
 l and Haken's work. Then, I analyze the most famou
 s arguments against equating computer-based and hu
 man-based proofs in mathematics and examine the ph
 ilosophical assumptions behind the presented criti
 cism. In the conclusion, I talk about whether the 
 philosophical assumptions are justified."
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\n  <p>&quot;In 1977,
  the first computer-assisted proof of a mathematic
 al theorem was presented by K. Appel and W. Haken.
  The proof was met with a lot of criticism from bo
 th mathematicians and philosophers. The arguments 
 against acceptance of computer-assisted proofs var
 y: it is not verifiable by human beings because it
  is impossible to survey; the actions performed by
  a computer do not constitute mathematical proof, 
 but merely a number of calculations; the method do
 es not contribute to the existing mathematical pra
 ctice, etc. I present some examples of computer-as
 sisted proofs, including Appel and Haken's work. T
 hen, I analyze the most famous arguments against e
 quating computer-based and human-based proofs in m
 athematics and examine the philosophical assumptio
 ns behind the presented criticism. In the conclusi
 on, I talk about whether the philosophical assumpt
 ions are justified.&quot;</p>\n
URL:https://coollogic.wixsite.com/website
CONTACT:Tuva Bardal, Paul Talma at coollogic.uva a
 t gmail.com
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR