FOM: Consensus vs Indubitability
fallis at u.arizona.edu
Fri Sep 18 18:37:34 EDT 1998
>rigorous proofs are indispensable, because we still demand a conventional
proof like Rabin's to establish a probability of "failure" for individual
trials bounded away from 1.
Why does our evidence that the probabilistic proof is reliable have to be a
conventional mathematical proof? Why can't it be probabilistic proofs all
the way down - as long as the probabilistic proofs allow for consensus?
School of Information Resources
University of Arizona
More information about the FOM