> An ad hominem attack is a way of saving resources That they are both ways of saving resources does not mean they are the same in any other way (e.g. both "wr

> An ad hominem attack is a way of saving resources That they are both ways of saving resources does not mean they are the same in any other way (e.g. both "wrong"). Choosing not to read your proof is not the same as declaring that the proof must be flawed because you wrote it. You seem to have a particular instance of this behavior in mind. Not being familiar with it, I can only argue the general case. I'm sure your proof is actually quite good!