© 2011, Drew Van Denover
Some mathematical theorems can be proven only with the help of computer programs. Does this reliance on computers introduce empirics into math, and thereby change the nature of proof? I argue no. We must distinguish between the warrant the proof gives for its conclusion, and our knowledge of that warrant. A proof is a priori if and only if the conclusion follows deductively from the premises without empirical justification. I start by defending this definition, and proceed to demonstrate that computer-generated proofs meet its criterion.
Van Denover, Drew (2011) "Epistemic Justification and the Possibility of Computer Proof," Res Cogitans: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 11.