It would be very discouraging if somewhere down the line you could ask a computer if the Riemann hypothesis is correct and it said, 'Yes, it is true, but you won't be able to understand the proof.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the Riemann hypothesis been proven?
Most physicists like myself won't believe the result until every possible caveat has been investigated and/or the result is confirmed elsewhere.
As far as I know, only a small minority of mathematicians, even of those with Platonist views, accept the idea that there may be mathematical facts which are true but unknowable.
A mathematical proof is beautiful, but when you're finished, it's really only about one thing. A story can be about many things.
You have to test your hypothesis against other theories. Certainty in the face of complex situations is very dangerous.
Don't despise empiric truth. Lots of things work in practice for which the laboratory has never found proof.
It is characteristic of science that the full explanations are often seized in their essence by the percipient scientist long in advance of any possible proof.
One cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.
Without troublesome work, no one can have any concrete, full idea of what pure mathematical research is like or of the profusion of insights that can be obtained from it.
You can't prove any hypothesis, you can only improve or disprove it.