> You don't need most of those 200 terabytes to understand the proof, I believe that you do. I would argue no human "understands" a 200 terabyte proof. Maybe t

> You don't need most of those 200 terabytes to understand the proof, I believe that you do. I would argue no human "understands" a 200 terabyte proof. Maybe they understand the procedure that arrived at the proof, but my point is that isn't a proof itself, or understanding why it is true.