Re: [Phys-l] perfect-square puzzler

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 04/14/2008 01:37 PM, Ken Caviness wrote:
> Nice,

:-) 

> ....  Their explanation strikes me as an inadequately
> supported generalization. 

I completely agree.  They didn't give an explanation of the rule,
let alone an explanation.  Proof by Bold Assertion doesn't count.

On the other hand ... since the puzzler as stated didn't demand an 
explanation, I would cheerfully give them full credit.  

On the third hand, having learned my lesson (yet again), I might 
want to revisit the problem the next day, asking for a proof.