Thanks for the nice post. I wholeheartedly agree with you, although I’d prefer to drop the term *old* in «grumpy old man».

When I joined the Department of Applied Mathematics more than 20 years ago, the main area of research was what I would call analysis, the second one was PDE (existence and uniqueness theorems). Now 20 years later, the group of analysis has retired, the PDE group has shrunk and a large amount of research is more applied than mathematics. All sorts of computer-assisted results are presented, in most of these cases, even the numerics is not very sophisticated.

However, there is an area in which a computer might be handy, and that has fascinated me since I started with mathematics: computer-assisted proofs, either for proof checking or even for proof generating.

There are a couple of these projects, most if not all concentrate on what one could call «finite» mathematics (that is not analysis).

The most spectacular result has been the successful check of a proof provided by Peter Scholze

https://www.quantamagazine.org/lean-computer-program-confirms-peter-scholze-proof-20210728/

As far as I understood it, providing something similar for analysis is still a long way to go.

Uwe Brauer

]]>Hi,

Thanks for your interest and for your comment. Unfortunately this is

formulated in a language which is difficult for me to understand. Could you recommend a source where I could read more about this kind of viewpoint?

I wanted to mention, in case you did not know, that there are also parts 2 and 3 on the Higgins-Selkov oscillator as posts on my blog. These show how mathematical understanding of the subject grew with time. On the other hand they have no obvious connection to issue of feedback.

]]>