"Prove a negative."

[Iconoclast]

Someone enlighten me. I have heard from time to time that you cannot "prove a negative". The following evaluation did not register to me....

Can't you do this?

x = 0.
Prove that x is not 5.
(5) ?= 0
5 != 0
Done.

Also, in order to prove it is "not" possible to prove a negative, you would have to prove a negative.

Here let's try again.
Given x is positive,

-x < 0
//x < 0 * -1.
x < 0
x is negative. //Definition of Negative Number
/*x - x < x
0 < x
x > 0*/

So what the hell does this mean anyway?

[Aravisian]

Prove to me that Invisible Elves Don't exist.

[GameGeeks]

Icon, can I add you to ignore for brining math here?

[Iconoclast]

Haha sorry mate but after skimming through the thoughts of tatsuya and yourself I am unfortunately not clear on that area.

In fact, elves aren't really my thing, but I guess I can't prove that either. ;)

Now what's that you said in that other thread about mathematics for proof? How's the math I just gave? Did I skip a step?

GameGeeks it's like pre-algebra, same thing as science, same as English, all the same language really once it's decoded by the mind.

[GameGeeks]

Link to that and either way I still hate math. :p Here try this (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html) page.

[Iconoclast]

What the hell is that crap? :D
Well Aravisian I guess it's just us two.

Reminder, I'm not into the asshatry of disagreement between humans, I'm just confused so wondering if you could help me.

[GameGeeks]

Sorry, but I never got higher then a D in math so that's the best I could do in 30 seconds of searching. :p Probaly should have read it first. :p

[Aravisian]

Haha sorry mate but after skimming through the thoughts of tatsuya and yourself I am unfortunately not clear on that area.

In fact, elves aren't really my thing, but I guess I can't prove that either. ;)

Now what's that you said in that other thread about mathematics for proof? How's the math I just gave? Did I skip a step?

GameGeeks it's like pre-algebra, same thing as science, same as English, all the same language really once it's decoded by the mind.

No steps skipped;)

What I was saying in the other thread is that you cannot prove a negative as an example of why scientific theory is never absolute and does not try to be absolute.

To use the example I gave:
Prove to me that invisible elves don't exist.
Attempt: You can't see it
Rebuttal: Of course not. It's invisible.
Attempt: I cannot scan it using a CAT scan
Rebuttal: It's invisible on all spectrums.

And so on...
The problem is that you cannot come up with a working test as long as someone else can find a way to place the testing standard OUTSIDE of measurability ( I know, that's not really a word...).

It becomes non falsifiable.
No matter what you do, you cannot test it's existence because the goal posts keep shifting.

What I said about proof and Proving- Proofs only exist in mathematics.
In other words: I cannot prove that water is wet. Because you can always come up with a non falsifiable hypothesis to explain why It's Dry but I have been fooled into thinking that it's wet (e.g. invisible elves practicing mind control on me to fool me into thinking water is wet).
It's like saying that "close only counts in horse shoes."
Since we cannot ever PROVE anything with absolute certainty, the best we can do is take a good hard look at observational evidence, test it, measure it, whatever it takes to find its properties and values. Then build upon that and create new hypothesis- continue to test until you have a "Workable Theory."
This is what separates Theory from Theorem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem
Some more links for ya to look over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

And to diverge from Wikipedia- let's go to the University:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

This last link is outstanding. It explains logical fallacies in great detail and with excellent examples.
I read it a lot- simply because I have yet so much to learn. Everyday, I can go home at night and scan the list and find several fallacies I have committed in my thoughts during the day.
It helps to go over that list and determine how clear my thinking is and try to improve on it as best I can by applying better understanding in my life the days following.
It's really difficult to not use logical fallacies. Growing up, we hear them so often and we grow accustomed to them.

[GameGeeks]

I didn't say it didn't have any substince or anything, Icon, I just can't read the problem since I suck at math. Only thing I know is ! is a nonexistent number in the form of the square root of zero.

[Aravisian]

I didn't say it didn't have any substince or anything, Icon, I just can't read the problem since I suck at math. Only thing I know is ! is a nonexistent number in the form of the square root of zero.

If I were to point out that your description is incorrect- am I going to get a lashing for "Forcing other people to believe" that you're incorrect or something?:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_negation

[GameGeeks]

My comment was that I didn't understand the math. So disproving that is irrelivent.

[Aravisian]

My comment was that I didn't understand the math. So disproving that is irrelivent.

Works for me. It was clarification- not disproving. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity for such a golden example.

If it helps though, math is one of my hardest subjects too. Spins the head in circles.

I know guys that run laps around me quickly and easily when it comes to mathematics and I'm left sitting there all embarrassed like I'm the village idiot or something.

It's most frustrating to have a love of something but no talent at it.

It's like a frog longing to play guitar.

[Viney]

i walk in... slowley walks back :o

[Iconoclast]

-x < 0
//x < 0 * -1.
x < 0
x is negative. //Definition of Negative Number

Well people, it doesn't take much skill to know this proof is invalid.
Rationalizing by negative one inverts the inequality operator. The correct scheme is:

-x < 0
-1(-x) > -1(0)
x > 0
-or-
x - x < x //-x + x < x, x(-1 + 1) < x, 0x < x,
0 < x
x > 0

No steps skipped;)

What I was saying in the other thread is that you cannot prove a negative as an example of why scientific theory is never absolute and does not try to be absolute.

To use the example I gave:
Prove to me that invisible elves don't exist.
Attempt: You can't see it
Rebuttal: Of course not. It's invisible.
Attempt: I cannot scan it using a CAT scan
Rebuttal: It's invisible on all spectrums.

Since we cannot ever PROVE anything with absolute certainty, the best we can do is take a good hard look at observational evidence, test it, measure it, whatever it takes to find its properties and values. Then build upon that and create new hypothesis- continue to test until you have a "Workable Theory."
This is what separates Theory from Theorem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem
Some more links for ya to look over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Inner-resting stuff....

There is also the postulate "axiom". These are rules assumed to be true.

Segment Addition Postulate
The combined measure of segments AB and BC is the measure of segment AC.
But they have to be collinear and share the same endpoint duh.

It's just not something that's easy to write a function-based proof for.

Right Angle Congruence Theorem
Given angles A and B are right angles, these angles are congruent.


Angle A is a right angle; angle B is a right angle. (Given)
Measure of angle A = 90 [degrees]; measure of angle B = 90 [degrees]. (Definition of Right Angle)
Measure of angle A = Measure of angle B (Transitive Property of Equality)
Angle A is congruent to angle B. (Definition of Congruence)

Of course, it's so easy to assume right angles are always congruent, but it's still possible to prove so it's a theorem.

Most people are not familiar with the "Third Angles Theorem". At my school, most people generally just assume that when two sets of angles of two triangles are congruent, the third set is automatically congruent. However this is a documented theorem, at least in the textbook we use.

I haven't put the time in to find exactly how this proof was based, but it was "proven" that it is NOT possible to resolve for the base of a function beyond quartic degree.

ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2 + dx + e = 0
Polynomial functions in one variable of this scheme beyond the present degree cannot be solved for in terms of x.

However this is a statement of negation, but you seem to be saying that it is instead not possible to prove a negative conditional statement based against scientific approach?

i walk in... slowley walks back :o

Ewwww, everyone run away. XD
Oh get used to it, lumox. lol

One thing I like about you guys (GameGeeks) is that you guys are the only ones to call me "icon". Everyone else calls me "icono", like a yawning coffee slurper or something.

[GameGeeks]

One thing I like about you guys (GameGeeks) is that you guys are the only ones to call me "icon". Everyone else calls me "icono", like a yawning coffee slurper or something.

Chalk it up to I"m a fat lazy *******. :p Also I skipped the rest since I'm trying to stay away from math and anything connecte to it. :p

[Iconoclast]

I didn't say it didn't have any substince or anything, Icon, I just can't read the problem since I suck at math. Only thing I know is ! is a nonexistent number in the form of the square root of zero.

When the base is less than zero then ya to an even power it is an unreal number.
Square root of zero happens to coincide with zero squared.

Possibly, you might find "!" at the end of a number.
7! = 7 * 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1

But these exist though.

Lighten up. I was thanking you in case you didn't notice. :)
Your laziness made my day.

[GameGeeks]

Wait, I was thinking of i for that. My bad. And as for the lazyness, my pleasure. SOMEone has to do it. People think it's easy being lazy...

[Iconoclast]

i fails English.

Just keep it in terms of the square root of negative one.

Of course when you get to like, the square root of i itself, that means the fourth root of negative one.
http://www.math.utoronto.ca/mathnet/questionCorner/rootofi.html

You guys used i by factoring negative one from the domain of the root.

sqrt(-4.)
sqrt(-1.) * sqrt(+4.)
(i)(2)
2i

Being lazy has respect for it my friend. You can release some good stuff.

[GameGeeks]

Probaly but you're looking at the guy that nearly failed algebra.

EDIT: Also, why'd you remove your visitor comments?

[Iconoclast]

Oh who cares what they think.

Besides, algebra is just a language. There are people who are linguistically natural at substituting the English implication behind variables in an equation and still fail at the conceptual understanding.

Myself, I got tired of my textbook's insensitivity.

Limit of a Constant
As n approaches positive infinity, lim c.n = c, where c.n = c for each n

Like, this is the easiest of the limit theorems presented without proof in a Pre-Calculus textbook to understand conceptually, but blah the crap about "see for each en" (c.n written as c with a subscript n) gah, some kind of Three Stooges song or something, why don't they just explain the concept like.

"The limit of a constant is that constant itself."
Because constants never change, their restriction is already well-defined based on the given information.

They also misspelled "discriminant" (discrimimant), so yeah English doesn't really tie in ya know?

To your edit about visitor comments, I never had any. :devil: Spammers, bots, crap, I've seen other forums. I disabled it from the start.
I also don't really want other people's crap judgments about me hiding in my profile or whatever, which is useless either way.

[GameGeeks]

See I get your discription on it even though I never learned about limits. Also I liked how examples never directly tied into the text in text books. And was just curious about why.

[Iconoclast]

In these days, textbooks seem to connect abstract definitions to real-life examples to solving those sorts of problems, but they don't give examples of a procedure in the language.

Before explaining an example to "Limit of a Sum"
As n approaches positive infinity, the limit of the sum of the nth terms of both a and b is the sum of the limit of the nth term of a and the limit of the nth term of b.
//raw from the textbook in basic text notation, lim(a.n + b.n) = lim(a.n) + lim(b.n)

See, there are teachers out there, who expect students to be able to figure things out by themselves.
However, the decision to teach even directly anything in the first place, contradicts the motive for their learning in this afterward procedure.

If you explain absolutely everything without leaving the connections to the individual's ability to render this information, this is what improves a student's ability to teach thyself hence forth. Even if this ability, a necessity for an advanced understanding, did not improve on preliminary assistance by a clear session of teaching, this means the student simply does not complete learning of the material when expected to fill in concepts to complete from the given information, and so the teacher is basically giving up.

Naturalizing to this basis is just realizing one's conscious self, but sadly many humans are murky, filthy in that terrible subconscious realm, screaming depression.

[GameGeeks]

I think my geomatry teacher broke that and I actualy got Cs in that class. Course the flash cards she let us use for tests helped.

[Klendathu]

If I were to point out that your description is incorrect- am I going to get a lashing for "Forcing other people to believe" that you're incorrect or something?:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_negation

After carefully reviewing all sides. I have come to this conclusion.
Some people don't like being wrong. Others enjoy proving people wrong. While still another group sits back and watches the insanity. The trick is knowing the difference and when to stop. I'm all for debating on the forums but when it leads to arguing who's right and who's wrong, threads have to be locked. Starting a thread complaining about the way things are ran is useless. This will only lead to more locking and name calling. Mod's Decisions are final, and are not open to public debate. If anyone has a problem with any member of this site mod or other wise take it to PM's. My self or any of the mods including the admin are more then willing to try and work with the members of CoolRom to solve any problems. This site is a privilege not a right. This is in no way a lashing at you as an individual, this applies to all members. So lets all keep our cool and be friends.

[Systemeth]

"Prove a negative."


No.

^ The above is proof of my denial to your request.
Denying, is a negative response.

I have proved a negative. Good day. :P

[Iconoclast]

Cute but it's not a request; it's a quote of thread title (originally in quotation marks as well). Thanks for playing.

[Aravisian]

Kelndathu, I am going to reply to your post bit by bit. Please understand some things...
Personal ego is irrelevant to me.
I have not been a member here anywhere near long enough to have allowed others to know my personality.
I strongly disagree with many things you said in your post and I'm going to explain why.
That does not make it an argument- It makes it an exchange of ideas.

After carefully reviewing all sides. I have come to this conclusion.
Some people don't like being wrong. Others enjoy proving people wrong. While still another group sits back and watches the insanity. The trick is knowing the difference and when to stop. I'm all for debating on the forums but when it leads to arguing who's right and who's wrong, threads have to be locked.
In complex situations, being able to discern what's right and what's wrong can be very difficult. Sometimes, it requires acquired wisdom.
Sometimes, no one can tell and sometimes, there are so many angles to look at something from that it's easy to say there is no right or wrong applicable to that situation.

Hashing it out can be very productive to helping people aquire the wisdom to know right from wrong- to know when right or wrong is applicable- to know when it's an exchange of ideas in which perspective can be more important than rightness or wrongness.

In THIS thread and several others, there is such a thing as a definite right or wrong.
Example: 1+1=5
That summation is incorrect. Wrong. It is the opposite of right.

Personally, I receive a LOT of correction in a lot of places for math and science I have gotten wrong. Sometimes, I recieve that correction in a harsh manner.
But I don't mind- I WELCOME it, because it allows me to expand and grow and become a better thinker or person over-all. I know I have yet so very much to learn.
I enjoy helping others and helping them discover the wonders of the world, too. It is never my intention to "prove another person wrong" but my intention to help them expand horizons- and I Hope and Expect others to do the same for me when I get something wrong.

When people discuss absolutes, there is such a thing as right and wrong. When people discuss variables, like religion and politics- right and wrong are concepts of such extreme complexity that it would be a very hard pressed person that could claim to know the correct and right answer to a political situation.

Please bear that in mind before you judge that character of a person who is standing up and saying, "This is the correct answer to this question."

Understanding these things is a Learning process. It's well worthwhile for many people to go through it, even if it means hashing things out politely.

Now, when people start accusing others, insulting or making degrading remarks, questioning a persons character or intelligence openly- Then I agree that Moderator action is necessary against the individual for their behavior.

To me: It's very frustrating when another person tries to defensively guess or assume my motivations for saying what I say. Because I put a lot of time and effort into trying to effectively communicate- and I usually don't get it right. Maybe I lack that talent. But I try and to have a person assume my motives makes communication more difficult.
Please think about what I have said and respond as you see fit if you choose to.
Starting a thread complaining about the way things are ran is useless.
It may be a futile effort, but I disagree that it's useless.

This is a very good example of what was discussed above.
Is it right or is it wrong to start a thread complaining about how things are run?
Honestly... I have no idea at all. I don't know the answer to that and many people will have many ideas as to whether it's productive to do it or not.

But for me, my own personal choice would be to speak out. It's my nature. Right or wrong- It's the way I am even if the effort is futile- it's not useless to me.

Because in my mind, it makes others aware of the problem. It puts the problem out in the open for discussion.
That discussion may convince me that the problem is in my head and not a real problem.
It may also convince others that there is a problem and urge them to take decisive action to resolve the problem.
For a forum, that can be a beneficial thing.

This will only lead to more locking and name calling.
I would urge individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and the Moderators to PM badly behaving individuals for a warning or to take corrective action against them.
Mod's Decisions are final, and are not open to public debate.
This is another one I have no idea what the answer is.
In my mind, I prefer to address a mod publicly as I am addressed publicly.
However, there are very good arguments for keeping Moderator questioning a private matter.
It is agreeable for me, that if I am a guest (as a member) on this forum, then I must respect the house and house rules as best as I can. Part of that includes standing up defensively if a Moderator himself is out of line...
But I agree to an extent here: I am perfectly willing to keep discussions about Moderators actions private and with that Moderator only as long as that Moderator is willing to discuss them with me in private as a grown up responsible person.
If he or she is NOT willing to do so, I may see it as appropriate to then address them publicly in order to create a setting in which they must be accountable and honest.

This is very beneficial to a Forum. It allows feedback and it sets a Control for Moderators so that they can behave in a manner that best suits their position as Moderator.

If anyone has a problem with any member of this site mod or other wise take it to PM's. My self or any of the mods including the admin are more then willing to try and work with the members of CoolRom to solve any problems. This site is a privilege not a right. This is in no way a lashing at you as an individual, this applies to all members. So lets all keep our cool and be friends.

I think this in itself is very reasonable. I apologize for my behavior to this forum- And I apologize directly to Tatsuya for when I behaved irresponsibly. I am not above being frustrated or angry- it takes a Severe amount of control on my part because I know I have a vicious temper.

Iconoclast
I have been very busy with work lately and haven't had much down time for the web- But you have made a lot of interesting posts that will take me some time to go over before I make any response to them.
Just so you know, so you're not wondering if I skipped out. Your mathematical skills exceed my own, you type out stuff I need a TEX editor for with ease... But I need to figure out what some of your notations mean, so I am a bit embarrassingly slow.
[EDIT THIS LINE as obsolete]
Edit to add:

However this is a statement of negation, but you seem to be saying that it is instead not possible to prove a negative conditional statement based against scientific approach?

Kind of.
I am saying one cannot prove something that cannot be empirically examined or tested. I cannot prove something is NOT something, like:
I can never prove there is no God or Gods.
I can never prove there are no invisible dragons.
I can never prove that something does NOT exist.

In mathematics, you can have negative functions work through proofs, but that's almost a play on words.

A play on Mathematics:
Is .9999~( into infinity) equal to 1?
Answer: Yes.
Understanding this require a person to study up on limitation theory.
But.. Let's take this from a different angle.
Pi.
In an equation that requires the use of pi (╥), a person will have to round off the number represented by ╥ in order to run the calculation. But in the actual math- ╥ is not rounded off. It's a symbol that represents that figure. Only because of our inability to properly express it using arabic numerals and the decimal system, must the number be altered into an imprecise state.
From this angle, we can see how approximation can misrepresent the actual value. Just as a fun example- Nothing more.

The kind of proofs used in mathematics has a bit different definition than the kind of off-hand speak use of the word Proving an idea.
I almost wish that the two concepts had different words...

[Iconoclast]

I am saying one cannot prove something that cannot be empirically examined or tested. I cannot prove something is NOT something, like:
I can never prove there is no God or Gods.
I can never prove there are no invisible dragons.
I can never prove that something does NOT exist.

In mathematics, you can have negative functions work through proofs, but that's almost a play on words.

A play on Mathematics:
Is .9999~( into infinity) equal to 1?
Answer: Yes.
Understanding this require a person to study up on limitation theory.
But.. Let's take this from a different angle.
Pi.
In an equation that requires the use of pi (╥), a person will have to round off the number represented by ╥ in order to run the calculation. But in the actual math- ╥ is not rounded off. It's a symbol that represents that figure. Only because of our inability to properly express it using arabic numerals and the decimal system, must the number be altered into an imprecise state.
From this angle, we can see how approximation can misrepresent the actual value. Just as a fun example- Nothing more.

The kind of proofs used in mathematics has a bit different definition than the kind of off-hand speak use of the word Proving an idea.
I almost wish that the two concepts had different words...

This theory seems limited in its reference.
What makes proving a negative harder than proving a positive, *besides* in that when proving a positive like the existence of a god, you can just give an example? To prove there is no God using examples, you would have to reference infinite examples.
In answering that question, depending on your answer, I hope we are thinking about, why not just explain it like that, as to why proving a negative is unfeasible?

Off-hand speak err prove and idea blah, mathematics is the alphabet in which the universe is written. If you can design a conceptual proof (or even something abstract like the impossibility to prove a negative), mathematics functions at least as well for proof.

As for the pi thing, people use algebra, arithmetic, Calculus, etc. cause they're humans and can't just directly process mathematically thoughts to the very end, so humans need a language to emulate math.
In short, it's not a fault of mathematics; it's a fault of humanity. The base arithmetic could well have been understood as something where pi could, to us, be a whole number measurement, but we instead go in terms of "ten". They're all just symbols in the end, really.

To use mathematics, the "kind of prove" WE use in mathematics, is BASED on definition. Proofs use definitions, properties, and theorems. There is no "different kind of definition", a proof in mathematics, is just a proof. More than a caveman's assumption, hardly anything less complex than not being able to proof a negative, which a few in this thread have accomplished.

[Aravisian]

This theory seems limited in its reference.
What makes proving a negative harder than proving a positive, *besides* in that when proving a positive like the existence of a god, you can just give an example?
"Proving" the existence of something is often defined by demonstrating or showing independently verifiable evidence of its existence.
Giving testimonials or examples is not proof.
To prove there is no God using examples, you would have to reference infinite examples.
Let's avoid using God as an example to prevent a religious debate.
I'll select Invisible Dragons as my example...
To prove that invisible Dragons do NOT exist, one would need to find a way of showing or demonstrating independently verifiable evidence that soundly makes the existence of Invisible Dragons impossible.
The tremendous difficulty in doing such would require you to have ALL the knowledge in the Univers and ANYTHING beyond it. You would have to be purely omnipotent yourself, in order to know with certainty that there is NOT something.
Because I can always demonstrate a non falsifiable- a non independently verifiable cause for invisible dragons to exist.
make sense?

Off-hand speak err prove and idea blah, mathematics is the alphabet in which the universe is written. If you can design a conceptual proof (or even something abstract like the impossibility to prove a negative), mathematics functions at least as well for proof.
I understand where you are coming from, but I must point out that mathematics itself is a language we have invented to our own purpose.
This language is not perfect, either. It is very sound and accuarate- but not perfectly so.
For example, you can not divide any number by zero, logically.
mathematics is a man made tool for helping us to define a model of reality- but it remains a man made tool- it's not a language of the Universe. It's a MODEL of the language of the Universe for us to use to describe the language of the Universe.


As for the pi thing, people use algebra, arithmetic, Calculus, etc. cause they're humans and can't just directly process mathematically thoughts to the very end, so humans need a language to emulate math.
Exactly. With this statement, I see we should be able to agree with my above statement.

In short, it's not a fault of mathematics; it's a fault of humanity. The base arithmetic could well have been understood as something where pi could, to us, be a whole number measurement, but we instead go in terms of "ten". They're all just symbols in the end, really.
I disagree on this score, simply because I think mathematics is as I described above.
To use mathematics, the "kind of prove" WE use in mathematics, is BASED on definition. Proofs use definitions, properties, and theorems. There is no "different kind of definition", a proof in mathematics, is just a proof. More than a caveman's assumption, hardly anything less complex than not being able to proof a negative, which a few in this thread have accomplished.
The difference in definition I was referring to is the Linguistic (English language to be precise) not a mathematical difference.

A mathematical proof is just a proof, but that is a different usage of the word than how people commonly use the word s "proof " or "prove."

[Iconoclast]

""Proving" the existence of something is often defined by demonstrating or showing independently verifiable evidence of its existence."

Precisely, so we've been agreeing with each other...you just take my post negatively.
It can also be just as easy in some scenarios to prove when something is impossible "not possible". It is hard to use examples without a comparative sense. If you want to get deep, nothing can be known for certain, so proof is impossible.

"I disagree on this score, simply because I think mathematics is as I described above."
I never came here to disagree. I am finished with this thread. It may be closed.

You are not so different from the rest of humans as I had hoped, always valuing things in terms of agreement and disagreement, tensity and arguments.
That is not what I asked you for, so this thread's purpose is terminated.
I respect your basis on logic and reasoning. Most people don't care about that...you are the first since, well. But tonight I can't.

I am out of time. heal tomorrow

[Aravisian]

""Proving" the existence of something is often defined by demonstrating or showing independently verifiable evidence of its existence."

Precisely, so we've been agreeing with each other...you just take my post negatively.
It can also be just as easy in some scenarios to prove when something is impossible "not possible". It is hard to use examples without a comparative sense. If you want to get deep, nothing can be known for certain, so proof is impossible.
Exactly.;)
We are, indeed, agreeing with eachother on this score.


"I disagree on this score, simply because I think mathematics is as I described above."
I never came here to disagree. I am finished with this thread. It may be closed.

You are not so different from the rest of humans as I had hoped, always valuing things in terms of agreement and disagreement, tensity and arguments.
That is not what I asked you for, so this thread's purpose is terminated.
I respect your basis on logic and reasoning. Most people don't care about that...you are the first since, well. But tonight I can't.

I am out of time. heal tomorrow
All of this - I don't understand at all.

Iconoclast, you seem to be saying that a person must agree with everything that you say, otherwise they are just "typical humans."
If someone actually has the audacity to disagree with you about something, you terminate the topic?
How unproductive...

People disagreeing is a good thing. It allows them to put forth logical reasoning to explain why they disagree so each person can think about their perspective. This allows for correction.

I feel a bit bad now- and I really have no reason to.
It was never my intent to silence you- but to draw your ideas out and see what you had to say.
That's what makes discussions so interesting to me: People making points that I had never considered before.
I'll ask you to reconsider your stance for now. Perhaps at a later time you will feel more comfortable putting your ideas out in the open regardless if people agree with them 100% or not.

And feel free to tell me how my approach to the discussion caused you to feel pressured. I'll try to improve my approach if I can.

[tatsuya1221]

Exactly.;)
We are, indeed, agreeing with eachother on this score.



All of this - I don't understand at all.

Iconoclast, you seem to be saying that a person must agree with everything that you say, otherwise they are just "typical humans."
If someone actually has the audacity to disagree with you about something, you terminate the topic?
How unproductive...

People disagreeing is a good thing. It allows them to put forth logical reasoning to explain why they disagree so each person can think about their perspective. This allows for correction.

I feel a bit bad now- and I really have no reason to.
It was never my intent to silence you- but to draw your ideas out and see what you had to say.
That's what makes discussions so interesting to me: People making points that I had never considered before.
I'll ask you to reconsider your stance for now. Perhaps at a later time you will feel more comfortable putting your ideas out in the open regardless if people agree with them 100% or not.

And feel free to tell me how my approach to the discussion caused you to feel pressured. I'll try to improve my approach if I can.

He was testing you, and you failed the test, it wasn't about right or wrong.

[Aravisian]

He was testing you, and you failed the test, it wasn't about right or wrong.

Allow Iconoclast to speak for Iconoclast please and stop baiting me into a FlameWar, Tatsuya.;)

It still is not about "right or wrong", and I was, again, excruciatingly clear.

If others choose for themselves to ignore what I have actually posted and, instead, inject words in my mouth and imaginatively read only what they want to perceive... I cannot help that.

Just because I disagree with a person doesn't make me "Right."
I'd like to see how the opposing view presents itself. Perhaps I will change my mind and then agree with it if the presentation is sound.

[tatsuya1221]

Allow Iconoclast to speak for Iconoclast please and stop baiting me into a FlameWar, Tatsuya.;)

It still is not about "right or wrong", and I was, again, excruciatingly clear.

If others choose for themselves to ignore what I have actually posted and, instead, inject words in my mouth and imaginatively read only what they want to perceive... I cannot help that.

Just because I disagree with a person doesn't make me "Right."
I'd like to see how the opposing view presents itself. Perhaps I will change my mind and then agree with it if the presentation is sound.

Sigh, you did it again, closed from request.