> Occasionally I see people here spending effort on making Metamath proofs as short as possible. And every time I wonder, Why?
Because it is fun. Because it helps me understand the overall structure of a topic better, when I do proofs myself. Because usually not only a particular proof becomes more readable, but surrounding proofs as well. This is because a shortening is sometimes possible only, when proofs are reordered. In effect, theorems become layered, the more basic ones bubbling up to early positions. This rearrangement is in itself helpful for understanding. This is perhaps not the ordinary case, but I have cut down several proofs roughly into half, sometimes even less, starting from 50 essential steps or so. The result is way more readable than the origin, I believe. Wolf Lammen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/d12b8ae5-42ae-4123-952b-a60dcf861a39%40googlegroups.com.
