Matthew 12
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, 27 we wish to see a sign from you."
39
He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful 28 generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.
40
Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, 29 so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Matthew 16
1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
2
2 He said to them in reply, "(In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red';
3
and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.)
4
An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." 3 Then he left them and went away.
Originally posted by ivanhoei think a theorem offered with no proof is an incomplete treatment. i further submit to you that this is the natural stance to take, and it is completely fair.
Matthew 12
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, 27 we wish to see a sign from you."
39
He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful 28 generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it e ...[text shortened]... it except the sign of Jonah." 3 Then he left them and went away.
until Wiles nailed it down, the math world would have worked until all fingers bled to prove (or disprove) Fermat's Last Theorem. if Fermat really did have a very elegant solution (as he claimed) then he was thoughtless and rude and arrogant not to have shared it with us. the same could be said for jesus.
of course, another thing to consider is this: a theorem that is wrong or flawed has no proof. and anyone can spout forth crap and call it a theorem. the dangerous thing there is that counter-proofs can also be difficult to provide.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn a differentiable universe what use are Diophantine equations?
i think a theorem offered with no proof is an incomplete treatment. i further submit to you that this is the natural stance to take, and it is completely fair.
until Wiles nailed it down, the math world would have worked until all fingers bled to prove (or disprove) Fermat's Last Theorem. if Fermat really did have a very elegant solution (as he cl ...[text shortened]... t a theorem. the dangerous thing there is that counter-proofs can also be difficult to provide.