[enewc]

Math is objective. The proof is either correct or not. Human interaction doesn't matter, except for perhaps marketing the importance of the results. In this case, the history of the problem itself has done the marketing, so any valid solution would be a wild success regardless of how socially eccentric the researcher is. Another recent example of such a mathematician is Grigori Perelman.

[MrQuincle]

If the proof cannot be understood, it might very well be the case that another researcher more concerned with advancing knowledge for us all, will be credited. There are many roads to Rome.

Proofs that cannot be grasped are like unproven truths. Worth very little... They only stand through the credibility of the inventor. It downgrades the mathematician to a politician.

[chriswarbo]

The proof is a human interaction: it is a series of papers written by one person to transmit their ideas to other people.

If it were a giant Coq term then sure, you can ignore those pesky details like "understandability".

[moron4hire]

Mathematics, being a human endeavor, is fundamentally about human interaction. There's no point to doing math if there is no communicating it to other people.

[eveningcoffee]

There's no point to doing math if there is no communicating it to other people.

I would not agree with that. One can do math for personal pleasure.

[webkike]

You can argue that everything can be reduced to human interaction, but mathematics is certainly not about human interaction in any meaningful sense

[moron4hire]

It's the only pure way to describe existence. That isn't meaningful? Mathematics is a language, first and foremost. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand its goals, methods, and form.

You can draw all the squiggly lines on paper that you want, but it won't mean anything until someone else interpets it. You cannot prove logic that only exists in your own head, because you cannot prove yourself rational. Your very existence does not even make sense without other people perceiving you.

[webkike]

Languages do not require human interaction. I do not argue that there is no mathematical language.

[moron4hire]

Language without human interaction is an undefined operation, like raising zero to the zeroth power, or clapping with one hand.

[drdeca]

Are you including interacting with oneself?

[webkike]

Uh, OK. Sure. Whatever

[imh]

Math? No.

Math in the form of a research community which has built up centuries of work for each other to further build on? Absolutely.

[Ar-Curunir]

Mathematics as done by humans is not just objective. There's a very social aspect to it; if you dress up the most amazing result in a drab and ununderstandable manner then nobody will notice it. You have to take the effort to make your result digestible and relatable, even for experts.

The proof can be completely fine, but if no one can understand it then it won't be accepted.