A case for Gibberish

[geoffreycaveney]

I don't think that proving gibberishness is similar to proving/disproving a mathematical theorem (Riemann Hypothesis in particular), because in case of theorem we at least know what to expect. It is either proof (which is well-defined concept ) or counterexample (in case of RH it's just a number).

In some cases a disproof may simply be a proof that a counterexample must exist, even if the actual number remains too large and thus too difficult to calculate and identify explicitly. A famous example was Andrew Odlyzko and Herman te Riele's disproof of the so-called You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in 1985: They proved that a counterexample number must exist, but even 35 years later an actual such number defies calculation. It is known that the smallest counterexample must have less than on the order of 10 duodecillion (100 quintillion squared) digits.