(August 12, 2012 at 2:03 pm)Shell B Wrote: That is assuming that you can prove it, which is a poor example, given that nothing has been proven by this time suck of a thread.Which is why you might need to go after the argument itself rather than throwing some hands-off structural concerns at it; sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.
Quote:Furthermore, if there is no consensus as to whether solutions exist, you damn well do have to prove they do before you can posit that a specific solution exists. They didn't skip speed on their way to the speed of light.Hence the phrase "if you can prove it directly". Direct 'proofs' should be given a direct refutation
