When all you have is a hammer, the world is full of nails. In my experience, knowing more math will allow you to tackle harder problems in a more sophisticated

When all you have is a hammer, the world is full of nails. In my experience, knowing more math will allow you to tackle harder problems in a more sophisticated manner. > Great!... Except, not so, because his proof only worked in a mythological environment where there is no latency between nodes. Under real conditions, the algorithm's properties led to unacceptable results, and he just hid behind the proof. Then he did a bad job. His failure does not undermine the power of taking a formal approach to a problem. He should have accounted for this latency in his initial model. What he did is the equivalent of someone working on an autonomous car and assuming that a noisy GPS signal is good enough to do control with.