🚀 go-pugleaf

> > 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.
> >
> 
> That is not a proof.  Division by zero is UNDEFINED.  There isn't some

LOOK UP.  I SAID THAT.  sorry for shouting....

> arbitrary faulty reasoning in your proof, it is a precise fault.  Just
> saying that all proofs are wrong because they could possibly have a
> mistake in them is not valid.  We go about making proofs in a
> systematic, correct way, and, with most of these proofs, it can be shown
> that they fit in with previous theorems and axioms.  Yours does not, so
> why does it matter?

My example cited a KNOWN exception, division by 0.  What if there is no
known exception?  CAN we assume that there won't be an exception?  If
there IS an exception, whether or not that exception is known, it's not
really a proof, is it?