One that he produced for the Guardian website's Genius slot was so complex that, when he came to checking the proof, he said that he would be surprised if anyone would be able to solve it, because he certainly couldn't.
Also by checking the proof of the last result, one can prove the next lemma.
Checking the proof of this theorem, we only need to show the case, (0< tleq1).
However, by checking the proof of Lemma 3.3 carefully, one can find that the proof of Lemma 3.3 is not sensitive to the powers of log log n.
But checking the proof in Theorem 2.2 in [24], we can obtain the same results in Lemma 2.1, only (n(t)) needs to be nonnegative.
If we check the proof of Theorem 3.7, we may notice that such theorem still holds if we omit conditions (g3) and (g4) but we add.
Checking the proof in [3], when (tin K_{m}), we get biglvert phi^{(m)}(t) bigrvert geq C_{beta, m}t^{-beta-m}.
But by checking the proof carefully, we find that one cannot find that h ( S i ) m ( Y i ) is a nondecreasing function of S 1, S 2, …, S i under the conditions of Theorem 2.3.
Since a fonnal proof of the complete safe-behaviour of the resulting ad-hoc system is not possible, this paper argues that Proof Oriented Systems Engineering formal techniques should bridge the gap with Fault Tolerant Systems Engineering practical techniques in order to mathematically check the proof of fail-safety.
