Simon,

We are talking mathematics here. Some words have slightly different meaning there then they do in the broader worlds.

Your approach was indeed logical, but it wasn't "thorougly logical" as in exhaustive.

Your method overlooks part of the possibilities/eventualities and basically implicetly assumes that they can not create more zero's. Assuming something (either explicetly or implicitely) does not equal to proof.



My point was whether you also understood why the other numbers could not produce zero's. That part was completely left out in coverage. Without it the proof is incomplete and not a proof at all. That is the fun about mathematics and the part that makes some proofs so darn difficult.

Point in case: proving Fermat's principle (look it up); we have know that it is true for about 250 years now, but no-one has yet been able to find a "closed" proof for it. Some mathematician thought he had just recently after working on it for some 15 years. Turns out a small part of his very elegant proof was not "thorough", preventing the proof from being "fully closed" and collapsing his whole proof.





Only when you have the option of choosing between two or more pathways that are equal in "thoroughness" and "closedness". A simple pathway that doesn't contain both or either one is absolutely worthless, irrespectibally whether it is simple or not.

Sorry,

I did remove the "lucky" part however as I do not think that was a fair statement

Wouter