#8 Mistake in <>B MBN proof example

[Trevor Davis]

Basically besides the first "F" all the other "F"'s should be replaced by "W"'s. Your other example of a triagonal bishop in the MBN page however was correct namely <*>B=B + (<+-1>W)0.

"proof" shoud be:

<>B = <>F0
= <>leap(1,1)0
= leap(1,1)0+(<+1>gW01)0+(<-1>gW01)0+(<+1>gW01)0+(<-1>gW01)0
= F0+(<+1>gW01)0+(<-1>gW01)0
= B+(<+1>gW)0+(<-1>gW)0
= B+(<+1>W)0+(<-1>W)0

= B+(<+-1>W)0 |This last one not included in original|

[Gregor Cramer]

Yes, that's right, I think I was confused because previously we have defined

B=B+(<+-1>F)0

but this is wrong, the following is indeed correct:

B=B+(<+-1>W)0

compare with Raumschach.