"Walnut" has spoken ... impressively in its own inscrutable fashion, but at the same time failing to offer insight into _why_ the result is true --- not that my own tedious effort constitutes a significant improvement in this respect! Of course, there is a shifting cultural background to such criticism. Nowadays I am perfectly content to accept Maple's evaluation of a knotty integral, without demanding an explanation of the (probably impenetrable) chain of reasoning by which it was arrived at! WFL On 2/25/17, Jeffrey Shallit <shallit@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Oops, I am very sorry, I mistyped the Walnut command. It should be
eval lunnon "An ((T[n]>T[n+1]) => (S[n]=@2)) & ((T[n]=T[n+1]) => (S[n]=@1)) & ((T[n]<T[n+1]) => (S[n]=@0))":
and not as I wrote previously.
eval lunnon "An ((T[n]>T[n+1])=> S[n]=@2)&((T[n]=T[n+1)=>S[n]=@1)&((T[n]<T[n+1])=> S[n]=@0)":