> a human mathematician would aspire to

Some do. But there's also the notion that a clever trick is a bad explanation.

Hmmm... seems to me that if you can find a solution without creating the desired explanation - then that's a problem with the original question - not the solution itself.

And discovering a bad question leads to the correct question. No?

▲

Garlef 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> then that's a problem with the original question - not the solution itself

I think there's a good counterexample to this:

Atiyah/MacDonald proove the Nullstellensatz ultimately by using some trick involving determinants.

They give a very nice theoretical treatment of the content and context of the theorem. But the proof at one crucial point uses techniques that live conceptually outside of this context: While its possible to see that the argument is sound, it does not give a good explanation of _why_ it's true within the context of the theorem.

(You could of course argue that they did not give enough context ... but that's exactly my point: the trick makes the proof work but hides the explanation)

	▲	coldtea an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>(You could of course argue that they did not give enough context ... but that's exactly my point: the trick makes the proof work but hides the explanation) Can't one see it in another way: that the trick illuminates a deeper explanation, connection the theorem's context and the stuff that's conceptually outside of that context. And that the problem is we don't know why the two domains (the context and the conceptually outside of it one) are related and cooperating in this way.
	▲	qarl2 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Ah... is this just the difference between a constructive and non-constructive proof? Is that the distinction you're making?

▲

calf 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this what the prompt means by proof strength gap, or is that something else entirely? (Sorry not a mathematician.)