@Fundamental retracted; the question has been brought into shape.

"Into shape" is a slight exaggeration. I intend(ed) to clean up the formatting a bit, but have so far been detracted by other things.

psa Sometimes, questions with clickbaity titles get an unhealthy amount of attention from SO folks who upvote without reading deeply into it. When you see such a thing happening, consider editing the title into something more concrete, preferably with a little bit of LaTeX syntax.

delete Find limit of expression

delete abundant numbers

@Fundamental Is pas used here in the meaning public service announcement?

Down with TLAs (three letter acronyms)! :-)

@Fundamental After an edit by the OP, several users voted to reopen. I wouldn't mind having questions like: To me this seems like a proof of this famous conjecture. I am probably wrong - but I can't find the mistake. That is, assuming that the proof is short enough and the question is clear.

In the sense, that it is ok to check short proof. (This would be similar to checking somebody's attempt to solve an exercise from a book.) It is definitely not ok to ask question like: Is this 20-pages long proof of mine correct?

In any case, I have also voted to reopen and then to close as a duplicate. The question will might still get deleted or auto-deleted, but it would be better if the OP sees the comments before that.

And I don't know how I did not notice this:

duplicate I think that A calculus proof for the general term of the Fibonacci sequence can be closed as a duplicate of some of the posts mentioned in the comments.

[ SmokeDetector ] Bad keyword in answer: Drawer contains socks. If I randomly pull 2, what is the probability that I will get a matching pair? by YouSuck on math.stackexchange.com

[ SmokeDetector ] All-caps title: EXPECTATIONS OF RANDOM VARIABLES by Paul Maseda on math.stackexchange.com

[ SmokeDetector ] Phone number detected: We write all the positive integers run together as follows: $123456789101112131415 . . .$ by JorleArbake on math.stackexchange.com

@SmokeDetector Not actually a phone number.