This was discussed at length some 7 or 8 months ago.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9515613" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9515613</a><p>However, that discussion is now closed, so any new thoughts will need to be posted here.<p>It&#x27;s clearly of general interest, as it has also been submitted here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9600347" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9600347</a><p>And here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9507279" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9507279</a><p>However, I feel that on HN there is a heavy bias against the way mathematics is traditionally done, and a continuing insistence that it must be replaced with, more or less, computer program sort of notation that no one has yet properly devised, and yet everyone feels must be the way forward.  I completely agree that there is considerable space for proof-assistants, and other tools to help prevent all sorts of mistakes, and to assist with effective communication.  I can&#x27;t help but feel that the case is over-stated, and the people who are most insistent that math is desperately behind the times and needs updating, don&#x27;t really understand how math is done at the highest levels.<p>I could be wrong, and remain open to being convinced.