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