It is almost impossible for me to read contemporary mathematicians who, instead of saying, ‘Petya washed his hands’, write ‘There is a $t_1 < 0$ such that the image of $t_1$ under the natural mapping $t_1 \to \text{Petya}(t_1)$ belongs to the set of dirty hands, and a $t_2$, $t_1 < t_2 ≤ 0$, such that the image of $t_2$ under the above-mentioned mappings belongs to the complement of the set defined in the preceding sentence …

$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ V. I. Arnol’d