[r-t] Gangnam (or whatever) etc.

[Richard Smith]

Robin Woolley wrote:

> The 1440 printed at p109 of the Diary gives a true 2880 to Gangnam as might 
> be expected intuitively - so the footnote to the comp. is (not yet) false. As 
> Graham John seems to be saying, one needs an even number of extents 
> 'packaged' to obtain a true comp. - an odd number won't do.

I would be extremely interested to see a proof that there is 
no true multi-extent composition of Gangnan with an odd 
number of extents.  Are you sure it's true?

RAS