But is this a proof? It's seems like essentially the same as 'proving' Riemann by using a computer to calculate the first 100,000 values of 0.. which is consid

But is this a proof? It's seems like essentially the same as 'proving' Riemann by using a computer to calculate the first 100,000 values of 0.. which is considered unsuitable as proof If using examples as evidence of proof I was under the impression you needed to also prove the completeness and consistency of the pattern from the examples This reads to me like if instead disproving a finite hypothesis Euclids proof of the infinitude of primes just consisted of listing the first 7 prime numbers allowing the reader to make the assumption, 'well those are getting bigger they must all get bigger'