If it’s an oracle and we know it’s an oracle then it’s not useless. Humans make mistake and there are examples of published results that were widely believed to be correct by experts that later proved to be wrong. Why do you think human verified proofs are better than machine verified proofs?

Suppose an oracle tells us the Riemann Hypothesis is correct. There are a vast number of results of the form:

If RH is correct then A.

It would be very useful to have an oracle tells us whether or not RH is correct.

Oh it would change a lot. It would be an enormous psychological boost for everyone to find a practical algorithm.

In any case, I think it's better to read PP as somebody would find a practical, albeit incomprehensible, algorithm for solving NP complete problems.

Although I probably disagree with PP, because even a candidate algorithm that mysteriously works without proof would have practical value, so this case is not predicated on proving.

I think a better example of genuinely practical but rather uninteresting (YMMV) mathematical proofs are proofs of convergence of numerical methods, FEM for example. (I have been through it in school, it was a torture.)

I would hope the magic oracle would continue to tell me ways in which I can use this knowledge practically.

I thought the point of publishing was a matter of dissemination, to make available for people to then try to understand it? This is like saying, I don’t like music, so I’m going to tear down the venue. Then, all music genres suffer as a result, and all of society does, too. This idea is no good.

Somebody, eventually, somewhere would understand it, or at least aspire to understand it. And even if he doesn’t, what have they learned in the process? About themselves, about their environment? About failure? I would bet a lot. How useful then, can we say that it is, not because we can understand it, but because we can try? That is useful. This is about the journey. Sometimes the journey is the point.

This is like if math was fascist, this is what would happen. When you start controlling the flow of knowledge like this, it will be bad news all around. And who is to say whether or not something can be understood?Aside from the math nazis.

If we are going to dictate what gets published like this, why bother publishing anything? This feels like a gatekeeping…that’s exactly what it is. Ya’ll getting nervous?