2 Apr
2014
2 Apr
'14
6:25 p.m.
Warren's observation that my lemma proof failed to deal with both boundary edges of the first octant region is well spotted, though straightforward (if tedious) to repair. The second problem he raises was obscured by my failure to state the inductive hypothesis explicitly. But the actual gremlin is unjustified assumption of the `obvious' d(x-2, y-1) < d(x, y) for [x, y] sufficiently far into first octant: so I ought not to rely on d(x-2, y-1) < f . It begins to look as though the geometric material at the end of that screed may constitute a topological component essential to a successful proof. Back to the drawing board! WFL