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.
