They've been explained by the posters at Clavius who were shown to be sophists years ago. As I don't have the math background to do the mathematical proof, I'll have to say it's up in the air. All you did in post #170 was to outline some of the factors that need to be used in the proof. Now we need the proof. Considering it to be proven after merely outlining the factors needed to do the proof would get you laughed out of the debating hall. I don't have the math background to do the proof but I have enough of a background to know a proof is necessary.