j
k
j a
j l
............Pascal Knodel writes:
.........Pascal Knodel writes:
......Pascal Knodel writes:
...Pascal Knodel writes:
Pascal Knodel writes:
But in this 'proof attempt' only "ys" was considered (1. I.H.). What do I miss?
You only need induction on 'ys' to proof the stated proposition. John
Back to the thread
Back to the list
