> > I prefer to think of my notation as concise, if a bit cryptic;
So you admit aiming to confuse.
> But as I pointed out, >> your argument couldn't have been valid as it failed to >> use some necessary hypotheses. I can't see any value >> in trying to parse your argument in detail trying to >> find the first error; if you had written it in decent >> mathematical English, I might have had a go (and you might >> have noticed any errors yourself!). > > There were no errors on my part.
Arrogant little shit, aren't you?
> Other than a reversal of xy as a > subscript. If you follow my exposition, you will have wisdom. Be > grateful.
A very arrogant little shit, for sure!
> Fact of the matter is, I cannot communicate well