**Interpretation #1**: [P vs. NP][1] There are many hard-to-solve problems with easily verified solutions. It can be a real talent to present a proof which is especially easy for humans to verify. In like manner, a good counterexample can be very enlightening. Those who have searched for counterexamples can testify to the fact that these can be very hard to find in the first place. *Do not confuse the ease of verifying a solution with the difficulty of finding that solution.* **Interpretation #2**: [Kolmogorov complexity][2] There are many proofs in the literature that are gigantic case checks, or extremely complicated analytic arguments handling many cases at once. One of the most famous is the [four color theorem][3]. Another is Helfgott's proof of [Goldbach's weak conjecture][4]. Some proofs require an extraordinary amount of data, which simply cannot be compressed into a smaller space. However, we don't usually celebrate the fact that a computer actually checked all those cases (even though that really does need to be done). Rather, we delight in the fact that we understand how to turn it into a finite task, doable in a small time-frame. The important parts of the proof are the key ideas, which sometimes are quite small in comparison to the rest of the work. *Do not confuse length with importance.* **Interpretation #3**: [Obfuscation][5] Good mathematical writing makes things *clearer*. One should "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation". My greatest joy in my research is discovering something new and then explaining it to others, in a way that makes it clear and *easy* to them as well. In my experience, a large amount of time should go into writing the solution well. *Do not confuse lack of clarity with brilliance.* [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_weak_conjecture [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation