3 ms·
To be fair, you were not rigorous enough to call that a proof and I think you know that. So there's really no point in arguing semantics here, it's just giving
by rickhanlonii 10y ago
To be fair, you were not rigorous enough to call that a proof and I think you know that. So there's really no point in arguing semantics here, it's just giving maths a bad look.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago> To be fair, you were not rigorous enough to call that a proof and I think you know that. On the contrary. Referring to a well-known result without proving it in situ is very common. For example, I also assume without proving that if two integers a, b have the property that ka = kb, then a is equal to b. You don't see anyone complaining about that.