Certainly is a pretty thing, but until such time as the actual n>2 set is used and not "The member of the series of implications is true for “n=3”, the validity for “n” implies ..." I'm not sure it qualifies as a proof and not just a really good argument.
-
-
Yes it is, but it is argued well lol
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
On a side note I do know some who study philosophy and would probably agree with what I read being accurate, I'm no expert but I do listen to them a lot. It's the mixing it with the math, I don't think it is a sound methodology for Math proofs.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.