My question is if there is any specific possibility to make consistent valuations of how difficult a specific mathematical argument/proof is? Starting with elementary proofs as being set "trivial" - would it be possible to "measure" how much creativity resp. interplay of different concepts a proof needs, and to condense long computations with just manipulations as elementary?
I came along this question when I thought about the fact that people often use different phrases for math proofs, like "totally obvious", "rather obvious", "obvious", "not completely obvious", "this is not so trivial", "highly non-trivial", etc. So it seems to me that there is sort of a feeling and concept as what is difficult or not - is it possible fo formalize this rigorously and consistently? Maybe with giving every proof a number on how difficult it is in the end?
Please help me with the tags for this question if you think there is a better choice; I will remove this comment afterwards.
