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
"Epistemic Justification and the Possibility of Computer Proof,"
International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities: Vol. 3:
2, Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/ijurca/vol3/iss2/5