ETA: The r.h.s. should have two exponents, not one. Then, one of the versions will be correct.In post #14 I corrected the error (re-entering the "not"), but was so pissed at the trivial and misleading response of Grapes that I just didn't attribute the error in the post (the context is obvious).
Then apparently Grapes edited the error back in and closed the thread so I couldn't go back and change it again to the correct version (which includes the "not") to try to imply that that was an intellectual position I maintain, which is false. Then he quoted the triangle inequality as if that WASN'T a position I had been maintaining from the very beginning of the discussion.
That is misleading at best, and at worst a blatant lie.
Time will tell on my proof; lots of people seem to be reading it. In any case, even in that thread, anyone reading it objectively will understand the mistake and cut me some slack.
In any case, history will judge....