Return-Path: <John.Harrison-request@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.5) outside ac.uk; Fri, 23 Apr 1993 18:06:15 +0100
Received: by antares.mcs.anl.gov id AA21561 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for qed-outgoing);
          Fri, 23 Apr 1993 11:12:15 -0500
Received: from netcom4.netcom.com by antares.mcs.anl.gov with SMTP 
          id AA21548 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <qed@mcs.anl.gov>);
          Fri, 23 Apr 1993 11:12:12 -0500
Received: by netcom4.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA06019;
          Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:12:25 -0700
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:12:25 -0700
From: val@netcom.com (Dewey Val Schorre)
Message-Id: <9304231612.AA06019@netcom4.netcom.com>
To: qed@mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Theorem generators and Theory Generators
Sender: qed-owner@mcs.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk


Once QED gets going, we will need not only proof checkers and theorem 
provers, but also "theorem generators" and "theory generators".  A 
theorem generator will work with an existing theory of QED and 
generate interesting theorems that are not yet present. A theory 
generator will scan the QED data base and generate "little theories" 
that could have been used for proofs in existing theories.

Notice the three levels of programs:

     Proof Checkers  -- Always succeeds
     Theorem Provers -- May loop forever but the criterion
                        for success is objective
     Theorem and Theory Generators -- May loop forever and the 
criterion
                        for success can only be subjective

This leads to a new form of Turing's test for artificial intelligence.
When a paper is submitted to a journal, was it written by a human 
mathematician or by one of QED's theorem or theory generators?

Val
