> see@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) writes: > >>Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>How does that have to do with whether or not my proof is correct? >> >>In theory it shouldn't. In practice, your use of defective products >>makes it impossible to read, and therefore assess, your proof. > > I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a fairly amusing troll. > > In fact, I think that putting up a purposely unreadable paper and > inviting comments (while pretending that the paper is clearly > presented) is pretty damned clever.
