🚀 go-pugleaf

jc <cast...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>tyr...@mail.sgi.net wrote:
>> 
>> > It has been proven.  It was a theory when Einstein first came up with
>> > it.  It was then proven.  If you wish to find out what some of the
>> > proofs are, then just post something else stupid, and I'll respond
>> > again.
>> 
>> Oh?  Can you prove it?  I can prove 2 = 3 via
>> 
>> assume x = y,
>> then 2(x-y)=3(x-y),
>> divide through by (x-y),
>> thus 2=3
>> 
>> We KNOW that's false because, by definition, dividing by 0 (or x-y in
>> the example) is undefined.  You really can't prove anything, since any
>> proof can contain faulty reasoning or may be based on flawed
>> assumptions, not to mention exceptions to the rule, like classical
>> physics in subatomic situations.
>> 
>> -JAmes
>> 
>If there is an exeption, it CANNOT be called a proof. A proof cannot
>contain any faulty reasoning as you said. For what you said to be a
>proof it would have to also have 'for x-y not equal to 0'.

     Understood, and granted dividing by "0" is undefined, but how can an 
exception be "for x-y not equal to 0" if the prior assumption (actually 
the correct usage is "presumption") is "assume x = y"?