(In reply to
re(6): Part I  notation by goFish)
We don't usually solve problems in the queue, and we certainly did not
solve this one there. We do sometimes comment on the
deliberations concening a problem when it was under review in the queue
 there is no rule against that. The Journeymen and Scholars who
participate in "moderating" a problem in the queue sometimes do not
agree on certain points and express dissenting opinions which may be
revealed later.
After reading the page that Mindrod gave the link to, it is now clear
to me that the subscript 2 in Mindrod's earlier post was being used to
denote 2adic norm, a concept that is more advanced than we expect to
see here.
It is possible to prove rigorously that n=3 is impossible, and probably
the same for n=5, without using any advanced concepts. I encourage all
to see what they can do in this direction.

Posted by Richard
on 20060205 10:27:10 