Certainly agree about Erdos/the Book. It's not an effort to prove that all elegant wonderful proofs are also concise, but instead that there exist elegant, wond

Certainly agree about Erdos/the Book. It's not an effort to prove that all elegant wonderful proofs are also concise, but instead that there exist elegant, wonderful, and concise proofs which are sometimes found. I always think of human proofs as the words on the page plus a significant guiding practice and convention of mathematics. Some proofs require more of that than others. Internalizing these proofs is highly non-mechanical. But I don't think we disagree here.