I don't see where we disagree. That's pretty much exactly why my points are less relevant for math papers: they are supposed to be self-contained. And while the

I don't see where we disagree. That's pretty much exactly why my points are less relevant for math papers: they are supposed to be self-contained. And while the result is sometimes interesting and can be put into TL;DR, I'd say in the most cases the entire point is reading the proof. No, I mean there definitely were cases when I was just wanted to see the final formula and skip the derivation, and I'd absolutely want it to be in the abstract as often, as possible, and I suspect that many math papers could be improved by using a better media than a LaTeX pdf file, but, as you said yourself, for math, it mostly isn't about informing me about the result. It is for most other fields. Basically, in the majority of cases the entire paper should be reducible to a couple of sentences that are useful on their own, which I'd like to read in (or rather instead of) the abstract, and the rest 50 pages of the paper should be a detailed report of why is it reasonable to believe you didn't lie (intentionally or not) to me in the abstract, by explaining the exact way to reproduce it, with providing as much data as legally possible. But the insufficiency of the content in your typical research paper is another topic, and much more complicated, so I wasn't going to start about that again, I only raised the points about the format, since that's what the thread is about.