Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It is important to keep in mind that this method, and all methods of proving existence, will fail if the object in question does not exist.
....or if the method of proving the existence is not agreed upon.
Originally posted by smokeymcpot420 Cmon all iam an anthist not cuziam ignorant but cuz I no theres no god and there no proof so give me proof and i shall be set free!lol but really there is no god!
You're right, there is no God. Because if there was he would have seen to it that I didn't have to go through the pain of trying to understand this gobbledegook.
Originally posted by smokeymcpot420 Cmon all iam an anthist not cuziam ignorant but cuz I no theres no god and there no proof so give me proof and i shall be set free!lol but really there is no god!
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.
Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist.
Can you prove that the redhotpawn chess site exists?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.
Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist.
I was saying you should do it by contradiction because F --> T is a true implication, and I'd included funny things about wolves howling, but it didn't post all the way for some reason, so eff it.
Originally posted by royalchicken I'm not quite cool with this. Specifically, proving that the statement in question (10>9) implies a true statement (1>0) does not prove the statement in question.
That's not what I did. I proved that 1 > 0 implies 10 > 9. (I actually did something stronger - I showed that they were equivalent.)
Originally posted by royalchicken I was saying you should do it by contradiction because F --> T is a true implication, and I'd included funny things about wolves howling, but it didn't post all the way for some reason, so eff it.
Yeah, eff it. It's obvious that existence for some things can be demonstrated.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That's not what I did. I proved that 1 > 0 implies 10 > 9. (I actually did something stronger - I showed that they were equivalent.)
No you didn't, you proved that 10 > 9 implies that 1 > 0, which we know to be true, and concluded that 10 > 9.
09 Dec '05 22:30
Lets be serious:THERE IS NO GOD
Back to Top