Fair enough, and thanks for reminding me of that paper, which is a gem. I'd argue that Lamport makes a convincing case with evidence and proposes changes that w

Fair enough, and thanks for reminding me of that paper, which is a gem. I'd argue that Lamport makes a convincing case with evidence and proposes changes that would rectify the evidenced issues. This author simply asserts it as a fact and then introduces an odd notation with little concrete justification. I also think Lamport's critique is less of the abstract symbolic systems used in mathematical proofs, but a lamentable tendency to use prose.