>> >Why don't you react more positively instead of quibbling about the >> >meaning of proof. >> >> Because you don't have anything vaguely resembling a proof, all you >> have are the same observations that led to the conjecture being made. >> >> >During those 270 years, nobody tried to correlate log N with log n. >> >> Others have already pointed out that this is incorrect. > >Could you give a reference?
Gus Gassmann already posted a reference, in Message-ID: <email@example.com>.
You replied to his post in Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>. You posted your reply on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:40:51 -0700 (PDT). The link was still in what you posted.