HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015942.jpg
794 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
0
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book page / publication excerpt (included in house oversight production)
File Size:
794 KB
Summary
This document appears to be a scanned page (page 252) from a book or article titled 'Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?'. The text discusses the mathematical work of Andrew Wiles, contrasting human problem solving with computers, and mentions the 'Four Colors' theorem. It carries a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015942' stamp, indicating it was included as part of a document production for the House Oversight Committee, likely within the larger cache of Epstein-related discovery materials, though this specific page contains general academic text rather than case-specific evidence.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Wiles | Mathematician |
Mentioned as having found a proof to an 'unsolvable problem' and identified as 'not a computer'.
|
| referees | Academic Reviewers |
Identified an error in Wiles' initial proof.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Historical
Historical (implied 1990s context)
Relationships (1)
It turned out Wiles’ initial proof had an error in it, identified by one of his referees.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (700 characters)
252
Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?
Are the Androids Dreaming Yet?
[Image: Geometric illustration containing various shapes colored in red, blue, yellow, and green, including a green cross, stars, circles, and a red rectangle]
Four Colors is All You Need
had found a proof. He had solved an unsolvable problem, a problem that
could not be answered by using a computer. Therefore, Andrew Wiles
cannot be a computer!
As with all real-life stories, it was not quite as neat as this. It turned
out Wiles’ initial proof had an error in it, identified by one of his referees.
Wiles had made an assumption about a particular number theory that
had not been proven: it was still a conjecture. Working with another
could not be answered by using a computer. Therefore, Andrew Wiles
cannot be a computer!
As with all real-life stories, it was not quite as neat as this. It turned
out Wiles’ initial proof had an error in it, identified by one of his referees.
Wiles had made an assumption about a particular number theory that
had not been proven: it was still a conjecture. Working with another
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015942
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document