Hmm. I’m not sure which is stronger. For all proofs I know, the conclusion is part of it such that if the conclusion is wrong, the proof is wrong. The reverse isn’t true—if the proof is right, the conclusion is right. Unless you mean “the proof doesn’t apply in cases being claimed”, but I’d hesitate to call that a conclusion of the proof.
Again, a few examples would clarify what you (used to) claim.
I’ll bow out here—thanks for the discussion. I’ll read futher comments, but probably won’t participate in the thread.
Hmm. I’m not sure which is stronger. For all proofs I know, the conclusion is part of it such that if the conclusion is wrong, the proof is wrong. The reverse isn’t true—if the proof is right, the conclusion is right. Unless you mean “the proof doesn’t apply in cases being claimed”, but I’d hesitate to call that a conclusion of the proof.
Again, a few examples would clarify what you (used to) claim.
I’ll bow out here—thanks for the discussion. I’ll read futher comments, but probably won’t participate in the thread.