> the NL proof may be wrong. But who cares?
The people trying to understand the proof are probably following the natural language version. So they care.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s how this paper (which I did not read) arose.
The people trying to understand the proof are probably following the natural language version. So they care.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that’s how this paper (which I did not read) arose.
Why are review papers published? Executive summaries? "Introduction to X" books?
People's time and computational resources are finite. Summarising information -- ideally in structured ways that preserve important properties, but even in informal, unstructured ways -- is critical for making any kind of progress in this world.