Quote from: username18333 on March 28, 2015, 09:41:32 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 09, 2015, 01:01:49 AM

Quote from: username18333 on March 09, 2015, 12:11:30 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 09, 2015, 12:01:04 AM

Quote from: Gimpeline on March 08, 2015, 10:01:57 PM

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Quote from: Proof by Mathematical Induction. California State University. sec.: 2. 09 Mar. 235. link=http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.mathinduction.html

The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

The problem with the idea of proof is (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.

Yet the qualities of the finite system can strongly suggest that there is an infinite system.

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, suggest[ion] [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.