It’s also a very short post. I think it is important to:
Cite the source,
Make clear that the source calls it an “anti-proof”,
Make clear that I think “co-proof” is better and why.
Beyond that, there’s:
Hat tip to Jacobian for recommending it,
Half of the second sentence praising the book more generally as a source of interesting ideas,
The second paragraph warning of the way in which this might be a spoiler if you draw a broad enough line around spoilers (which some people do),
The first sentence of the third paragraph, giving a bit of the context in which the term is used in the book.
Of these, the first three seem worth including to me, and including the small spoiler warning forces the book-related stuff to be before the main point of the post.
It’s also a very short post. I think it is important to:
Cite the source,
Make clear that the source calls it an “anti-proof”,
Make clear that I think “co-proof” is better and why.
Beyond that, there’s:
Hat tip to Jacobian for recommending it,
Half of the second sentence praising the book more generally as a source of interesting ideas,
The second paragraph warning of the way in which this might be a spoiler if you draw a broad enough line around spoilers (which some people do),
The first sentence of the third paragraph, giving a bit of the context in which the term is used in the book.
Of these, the first three seem worth including to me, and including the small spoiler warning forces the book-related stuff to be before the main point of the post.