On Nov 14, 3:52 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 12:00 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 5:09 pm, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The first link has no high level description, the second link is empty > and the 3rd one does not show a parallel proof at a high level. > > I can hardly imagine a person writing a proof without first developing > it at a high level then working out the details. Like any good > programmer, one can include the high level in parallel with the > details. If you want to be a bad programmer, then you have raised the > cost of one contributing (analogous to mainintain someone else's > software) which is your decision. Good luck. :) > > C-B
The third link speaks about the whole proof at high level. Also the first link give you a summary of this proof, and the second link (which you just need to copy and past to addresses bar) shows another formal proof (not high level), and gives you a parallel way of understanding matters. Definitely if you have read those references you'll get the high level you need for this proof.