I think this approach briliant. However, I believe it can be simplified to avoid depending to trigonometry and geometry series, while keeping the original idea. I have no idea if it is similar to any existing proof of…
do you mean "b > c and d > a"?
I think this approach briliant. However, I believe it can be simplified to avoid depending to trigonometry and geometry series, while keeping the original idea. I have no idea if it is similar to any existing proof of…
do you mean "b > c and d > a"?