His answer was that he thinks there will be no practical applications from this proof, since it merely states that something exists without giving us an idea of how to find that thing.
Yeah. For the most part non-constructive proofs are only good for proving things about existing algorithms - their convergence properties, their correctness, their running time etc. Formal proof often isn't necessary in practice, though - "seems to work well enough" is ok in many domains.
Of course, this isn't to say that new mathematics based on the result and on the techniques used to prove it won't lead to new algorithms.
Comments
Thanks, but I said in "lay" ("lag" due to stupid iPhone AC) terms...
I dont really get how your response answers my question.
Can you really dumb it down for me; explain like I am 5 how this will result in practical applications in the next (N) years.
thanks
His answer was that he thinks there will be no practical applications from this proof, since it merely states that something exists without giving us an idea of how to find that thing.
Yeah. For the most part non-constructive proofs are only good for proving things about existing algorithms - their convergence properties, their correctness, their running time etc. Formal proof often isn't necessary in practice, though - "seems to work well enough" is ok in many domains.
Of course, this isn't to say that new mathematics based on the result and on the techniques used to prove it won't lead to new algorithms.
Here is the best layman's explanation I could find: http://i.imgur.com/VrjiG.gif