In the recent past, I've accepted that all titles are not informative anymore. But that there was hope that the subtitles were actually informative (i.e. the su

In the recent past, I've accepted that all titles are not informative anymore. But that there was hope that the subtitles were actually informative (i.e. the subtitle was the real title, and the title was the clickbait). In this article, neither is informative. And even after several paragraphs in, you don't know what the general area of the proof is. Just meandering long-winded story-telling. If anyone of you authors/editors of this magazine are here; please, for the love of all that's holly, put the crux of the matter at the top and then go off to tell your beautiful, humanized, whatever... story.