I don't agree that mathematical proofs are more fault-proof than code. Mathematics is based more in the "spirit" of the idea and proof, rather than pedanticall

I don't agree that mathematical proofs are more fault-proof than code. Mathematics is based more in the "spirit" of the idea and proof, rather than pedantically driving things down into the ultimate nuts and bolts. Many paper proofs are likely full of bugs deep in the details. As intuitionism and machine formalism develop, and the standard of rigor rises, we might see entire branches of mathematics being relegated to the dustbin of historically interesting human endeavors but totally useless as foundations/formal assumptions for future work.