Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: Mr. X <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 05:49:39 +0100
On 11 Mar 2006 20:38:56 -0800, jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
That's right. If your argument w e r e a (correct) proof weBut you can't disprove a proof, right?There's no trouble. I've stated a *counterexample* which disproves
The trouble you face is that [...]
your claim:
certainly would have a problem here.
Well, if an argument is incorrect, repetitions won't help, I guess.Well, here it is, again. [...]
I'm sorry. Your argument is not a proof, that's for sure.
Right. That method is called /the method of counterexample/.
In attempting to attack that logical argument, you [selected
a certain function] which contradicts that conclusion.
....or math is inconsistent.
Then, logically, either [my] argument is incorrect--so an erroneous step
can be found--or YOUR [try to give a counterexample] is bogus.
Imho, your argument is incorrect. Why? I simply can't follow your
argumentation, sorry about that. And imho it *should be* possible (for
me) to follow your argumentation, if it were mathematical in nature.
Mr. X
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- References:
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: Mr . X
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: Mr . X
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: New core argument then
- Prev by Date: Re: You have nothing
- Next by Date: Re: JSH: Not hard, you're not crazy
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: New core argument then
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: New core argument then
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
