Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions
m
better fix
m (fix text container issue) |
m (better fix) |
||
Line 124:
2. Argue that step 1 is "convincing", induction schminduction;
3. (backup plan) Dare any disagreeing reader to find a counter example;
::: It's easy to show that my approach here does not handle the Collatz conjecture. Consider the values 1 and 3. Their Collatz sequences have different lengths. Nothing in my approach deals with these sequence lengths.
Line 130 ⟶ 132:
::: It's also easy to show that my approach here does not handle the Goldbach conjecture: Nothing in my approach deals with primes.
::: --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
▲:::::::::::::::: <lang text>4. Profit! I mean, proof!</lang>
:::::::::::::::: Your arguments thoughout this discussion varied, but none of them justfies the J example as a proof:
:::::::::::::::: 1. "The task didn't say what kind of proof it wants": it doesn't matter. What J offers is anecdotal evidence, not a proof. You can't quote a nameless math teacher to subvert the well-agreed meaning of a word, not when the context is programming/math/logic.
| |||