sniffnoy | ...and here I thought I would be done with this soon

Well, I will, but not as soon as I thought. I said I had made a big error, that I wrote "2/3" where it should have been "3/4" in one of the cases - but I mean, my numerical data had pointed towards 2/3 in all cases. So, of course, I had to go back and investigate my program and see where things were going wrong. Turns out, there's a pretty basic mistake in the algorithm that... well, suffice it to say that I'm going to have to modify one of my data structures some, and, well, yeah, back to programming nonobvious stuff. (Basically, looking at products of things, I used "is product of less things" when I should have used "is smaller in numerical value". I still don't intend to use the latter, because that would complicate things immensely, but, yeah, this can be fixed.) And then I have to investigate another, similar, mistake I made, and see how much has to be changed there. It's annoying, because that one's going to be harder to fix, but it's also a case that shouldn't actually come up. Still, I think it'll be easier to fix the program than to directly prove that that case doesn't come up.