# This does not provide an answer to the question

Prove $0.9999^{\!101}<0.99<0.9999^{\!100}$

......but it does, just a bad one, is it a system bug that posts a comment like that?

• Update: owner has deleted this answer. May 28, 2019 at 6:32
• The question asks for proof. Your answer gives the result of a computation. How does this answer the question? That being said, the link above does not link to an answer, but rather to a comment, so it is difficult to know what you are wanting to discuss.
– Xander Henderson Mod
May 28, 2019 at 13:52
• @XanderHenderson What is the point of a computation then? If a computer algebra system expands $(x+y)^2$ into $x^2+2xy+y^2$ are we then not allowed to use this in a proof because we have not expanded this "manually" ourselves? Where do we draw the line? Usually questions like this state "without using a calculator".Is this implied by the word "prove"? May 28, 2019 at 14:10
• @Somos In general, yes, the word "prove" precludes the use of a calculator. The point of such an exercise, generally speaking, to learn how to apply some theorem or result in a particular context. Using a calculator doesn't really provide proof, and kind of misses the point of the exercise. Unless one wants to verify that the computation done by the computer is correct (i.e. it is stable, has the appropriate precision for the task, etc), then one should not rely on an untrustworthy computer.
– Xander Henderson Mod
May 28, 2019 at 14:37

This came up in the review queue and I spent some time thinking about it before selecting that reason. On the one hand, I like the humour and the reference to Fermat. On the other hand, it really doesn't help the questioner, nor anyone else likely to come to the site. So I decided in the end that it should have been a comment, not an answer. The reason that ends up on the question is slightly different to the one the review queue presents; I was expecting the "this is a really a comment part" to be more obvious. For what it's worth I haven't downvoted, but I see that others have.

My suggestion would be to convert it into a comment on the original question :)