[r-t] Re: Proofs

[R.P.I. Lewis]

> I'm not sure whether you're saying that if you chose the
> other multiplication convention, so that you wrote C.inv(A)
> instead of inv(A).C while still refering to the same thing;
> if so, then of course you are right.  But that's not what
> I'd understood Richard's comments to mean.  He said:

I'm quiote surprised anyone understood my comments, as I got completely
the wrong end of the stick... Sorry for everyone I've confused!