does not solve the original problem of making mistakes obvious.
Yes it does.
In all three cases mentioned, it highlights mistakes in the proofs. (Using much less effort than applying massive amounts of paraffin to make each step waterproof.)
I did mean something by this, and not just “making all mistakes obvious”.
The method in the post for handling unsafe strings and a habit of only using reversible operations in some areas of math make the error inherent in not following the convention. The notation takes the same form as the thing being analyzed, moving some thought from a conscious level to an automatic level. This kind of thing can save time overall in many situations because, when a mistake is made, you have already ruled out many places where the mistake cannot be. The paraffin becomes almost invisible, and it eliminates the need to check for leaks.
Yes it does.
In all three cases mentioned, it highlights mistakes in the proofs. (Using much less effort than applying massive amounts of paraffin to make each step waterproof.)
I did mean something by this, and not just “making all mistakes obvious”.
The method in the post for handling unsafe strings and a habit of only using reversible operations in some areas of math make the error inherent in not following the convention. The notation takes the same form as the thing being analyzed, moving some thought from a conscious level to an automatic level. This kind of thing can save time overall in many situations because, when a mistake is made, you have already ruled out many places where the mistake cannot be. The paraffin becomes almost invisible, and it eliminates the need to check for leaks.
(I did not downvote you, btw)