> It should have been simple to add a line about the "other important results" and not violate show not tell. Only a very tiny fraction of the publication's re

> It should have been simple to add a line about the "other important results" and not violate show not tell. Only a very tiny fraction of the publication's readers will have any idea what the heck the Mizohata-Takeuchi conjecture is. Naming the important results that Mizohata–Takeuchi being true would have validated would have been just technobable to nearly everyone reading the article.