4 ms·
m = n would be trivial and pointless. Also, I'm curious why he didn't specify precisely clarify "distinct" to mean "pairs of unequal values" (e.g., exclude {n,m
by 1letterunixname 4y ago
m = n would be trivial and pointless. Also, I'm curious why he didn't specify precisely clarify "distinct" to mean "pairs of unequal values" (e.g., exclude {n,m} where n=m) and "pairs not equal to others" (e.g., {x,y} excludes {y,x}).
- ouid 4y agoThe condition is as precise as possible "pairs of distinct integers" is not equal to "distinct pairs of integers". Don't blame the writer when you fail to read what is written.
- 1letterunixname 4y agoRelax and be civilized.
- ahmedalsudani 4y agoIt's common for the obvious cases and obvious constraints to be assumed. Adding "distinct" would have made it clearer, but it was obvious that the author meant distinct from reading the title alone.
- someweirdperson 4y ago> Adding "distinct" would have made it clearer, but it was obvious that the author meant distinct from reading the title alone. It's math. No assumption is ever obvious. Only parts of some proofs are ever allowed to be called obvious.