I wrote: > According to the logic of your proof we would have had the > following preposterous result: > > 3=-(-3) > 4.-3 + 5.3 > 0 > => 4 > 5 !!!!!!!!!! Of course, that should have read, -3 = -(3) 4.-3 + 5.3 > 0 => 4 - 5 > 0 (dividing all terms by -3) ie 4 > 5 !!!!!!!!!! Regards, Mike.