Given that somebody claims a proof to a problem and you ask 100 highly qualified mathematicians whether this proof is valid, will they all agree that it's valid or all claim it's invalid?
In other words, is a chain of logic unique and pure? Or is it like the law where when you present very convincing evidence in a court case, there could still be some doubt? Is there some set of rules that make a proof unique and universally understood by a machine?
You could present a proof at the most extreme detail and go into the most fundamental axioms of mathematics, or you could skip key points and just say "clearly, this and that is the case".
My second question is with respect to the format. I always see proofs with text and equations, but you also instead show a graph or a truth table or a drawing. Do illustrations also qualify as proofs (if they are presented in isolation)?