Dear Russell: 1) The UD proof of the object "all theorems" is complex because each step is a unique slice of progress towards some sub component of the target object thus all steps are different and there are a great many of them.
2) The UD knows its proof is complex and since it is the only way it has to the target object it knows it is elegant. 3) The following are some combinations of a low complexity FAS, different proof types, and different object types: ["ok" means the combination is possible, "simple" means low complexity] a) simple FAS - simple proof, non elegant - simple object -> ok b) simple FAS - simple proof the FAS can not prove is elegant - simple object -> ok c) simple FAS - simple proof the FAS can prove [knows] is elegant - simple object -> ok d) simple FAS - complex proof, non elegant - simple object -> ok e) simple FAS - complex proof - complex object -> ok The UD follows: f) simple FAS - complex proof the FAS can prove [knows] is elegant - simple object -> no good Hal
