[ColinWright]

It's certainly true that a lot of Euler's arguments were incomplete and non-rigorous by today's standards, but in many cases they were way ahead of his time. As you say, he was getting results in areas where complete and formal foundations didn't get laid for centuries.

And yet he seemed pretty much always to be right. He didn't fall into any of the traps that await the unwary, and which are the usual reasons for formality being required. It seems clear that he really did understand what was happening at a deeper level, even if the arguments he gave were, in some cases, described now as "superbly reckless."

I'm not convinced Dijkstra would've considered Euler to have been a poor mathematician. Now I wish I'd asked when I had the chance.

[stiff]

There was a lot of irony in my comments that I think not everyone understood. What I am really saying is that everything Dijkstra wrote on the topic of doing good mathematics contradicts the possibility of someone like Euler existing, yet he did exist and did work of unmatched quality. Whatever value might Dijkstra's work ultimately have I have no idea, but I find his insistence of his way being the only way appalling and his writings get really arrogant at times where he picks some very formal nit and makes it appear like a great intellectual achievement.