User blog comment:Boboris02/Large number combinatorics II:Trying to prove something interesting/@comment-2033667-20170206081115

everything up to the line starting at "We define S to be equivalent" seems pretty obvious and provides no insight. i believe it can all be removed.

the line starting with "We define S to be equivalent to the set" directly contradicts the next paragraph, where you call S a string. which is it?