...the difficulty of 1...

"Computer generated math proof is too large for humans to check"

"(…) Erdős discrepancy problem revolves around trying to find patterns in an infinite list of just the two numbers "1" and "-1". Named after Paul Erdős, the discrepancy problem arises when cutting off the infinite sequence at some point and then creating a finite sequence using a defined constant. When the numbers are added up, the result is called the discrepancy figure. Lisitsa and Konev entered the problem (with a discrepancy constant of 2) into a computer running what they describe as state of the art SAT solvers—software that has been written to create mathematical proofs (…)"

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-math-proof-large-humans.html

This is not a problem of mathematical proof, it is a problem of ontological interpretation. It is about not thinking things from a cognitive matrix that looks at the past. The patterns do not come from the past, the patterns come from the future. The expansion of the 1 (?!) unity (?!) (unique, singular) is always geometric and supported by a dynamics from the future to the present, independently of how large the value of the sum is. What is important to interpret is the ontological dynamics of the sense of unity itself: any absolute value is ontologically reducible to the unity, in the sense that it is the ontological repetition of the unity.

The unity, as ontology of presence to the sustaining of the diversity, has to have the systemic capability of guaranteeing, in indeterminate terms, the geometric expressions of itself that may guarantee the geometric reflexive sustainability that sustains the openness to the indetermination, because of that it is interesting to take an ontological gaze on expressions such as 1 and -1. The -1 is always geometric, never arithmetic, the relation between 1 and -1 is always a geometric relation.

Facing the initial first 1 is always its geometric ontological reflexive "to itself" that guarantees it its condition of presence, that is, the "nothing" of itself, as absence of itself to itself, but still condition of itself. Between that initial first 1 (fiat dixit) and the negative expression of itself -1 are all the other ones, we, the Cosmos, geometric expressions, entities, figures of that 1 as other ones: we are all cosmic substances of a same cosmic weaving. Here we are, we, the planet, the cosmos…, dimensional, multidimensional…,

What about the computer?! We are good at building tools that think for us, and even better at alienating ourselves in these tools. The poor computer is clever, it does that which we are not able to do, because while we look at the patterns emerging from the past, the computer knows that it has to guarantee the present that was demanded of it and, thus, it goes on computing, always from the future (FutureNow) to the present (PresentNow) in an undefined and indeterminate way. The computer "sees" the obvious that we do not, because we complicate things, because we want to be very important, masters of the universe, of the thinking, of everything, when it would suffice to look at us and the things and let them speak for themselves, without demands of control.

The truth is: we are not that clever, all we can do is learn, look at the sense of unity and let that sense speak to oneself. One might state: but that sense of unity is whatever we want it to be because it was we who "invented" it, right?! Such as mathematics is a language, of course. But it is possible to assume the existence of patterns or dynamics of existence that express evidences of that which we call irreducibility, with a character of necessity that points towards a language of absolute of presence and permanence.

Geometric rationality?! Yes, it is a pity that we have not developed it further, it would certainly give us a common sense capability towards the survival, and things like global warming and other problems that endanger us along with other species would not be taking place, because each of us is a systemic absolute of presence, singular, irrepeatable, irreducible, non-uploadable/downloadable (of course), we and the others are absolutes of projective presence and permanence that is important to guarantee, if we wish to speak of eternity. A concept that begs some attention freed from dogmas: dogmas of doctrine, dogmas of sects, dogmas of market, dogmas of power.

As for the first fiat lux, fiat dixit, the conjecture of God is as possible as the conjecture of a quantum anomaly, personally I bet, and faced with the mess of life that we have, I bet on the Ninja Turtle cosmogony: ooze, humus, yes, most probably. Crazy aliens is also possible...