It seems like the author is conflating the accuracy of the language of a proof with the accuracy of the proof itself, which may be the same thing to some extent

It seems like the author is conflating the accuracy of the language of a proof with the accuracy of the proof itself, which may be the same thing to some extent, but overall to try and refute something like this: > In particular, they believe proofs are fundamentally and exclusively about truth, and that they are either right or wrong. ...is just semantics. Arguing that a Euclidean proof is wrong because it makes contextual assumptions about the reader's frame of reference is just pedantry. Mathematics is much more rigorous in 2014 because the value of the time of the average mathematician is worth much less.