Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!Bundy%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa
From: Bundy%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Mathematical Methods
Message-ID: <903@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Jun-84 23:33:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.903
Posted: Wed Jun 13 23:33:08 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jun-84 01:05:37 EDT
Lines: 17

From:  BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) 

        I support Broome's and Brint's interpretations of what I was
trying to say in my book.  I was not trying to criticise mathematics
papers per se, but to point out that they do not contain some of the
information that AI researchers need for computational modelling and to
make a plea for a forum for such information.

        But let me add a caveat to that.  The proofs in a paper are at
least as important a contribution to mathematics as the theorems they
prove.  Future mathematicians may want to use these proofs as models for
proofs in analogous areas of mathematics (think of diagonalization
arguments, for instance).  So it will improve the MATHEMATICAL content
of the papers if the author points out the structure of the proof and
draws attention to what s/he regards as the key ideas behind the proof.

                Alan Bundy