I haven't read the book, but your justifications here send up as many red flags as the quote you are addressing. First, a proof is either valid or it is not. Yo

I haven't read the book, but your justifications here send up as many red flags as the quote you are addressing. First, a proof is either valid or it is not. You cannot have a "different view" on this. Second, there is no hacker/compsci divide. Terms like 'the real world' are used solely to demean the work of another person and offer nothing useful. Your example is especially frightening. You cannot build proofs on weak rules-of-thumb. In fact, it is difficult to even quantify values surrounding heuristics like the one you give. There simply is no valid data.