The meaning of proof

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
Proof is not a statement.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
Proof is not a statement.
It is. Can you prove anything without words?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Advocate »

Off the cuff, proof is sufficiently salient evidence to accept the validity of a claim "for all intents and purposes" in the context of the question or problem.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Impenitent »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
Proof is not a statement.
It is. Can you prove anything without words?
pushing you off a cliff proves gravity

...then again

-Imp
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Skepdick »

Impenitent wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:02 pm pushing you off a cliff proves gravity
It does? I just thought it proves that people fall when pushes off cliffs.

Gravity is an object of theory.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503327 time=1616257091 user_id=17350]
[quote=Impenitent post_id=503318 time=1616252549 user_id=3944]
pushing you off a cliff proves gravity
[/quote]
It does? I just thought it proves that people fall when pushes off cliffs.

Gravity is an object of theory.
[/quote]

It's a theory that Means that effect, and it's not a theory like guess, as you seen to intend, but in the scientific sense, as in that which best explains all available evidence. You're just playing word games.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:04 pm It's a theory that Means that effect,
So you are necessarily appealing to causal reasoning here. Each effect must have a cause. OK...

Which theory do you think Means the effect that is existence itself? What is the cause of that effect?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:04 pm and it's not a theory like guess, as you seen to intend, but in the scientific sense, as in that which best explains all available evidence.
Pray do tell how "gravity" explains anything about people falling from cliffs.

Which part of the observation confused you at first? Which part of your understanding/psychology would've been deeply unsettled in the absence of the theory of "gravity"?

Is it the anxiety caused by the dangling question "Why do people fall when pushed from cliffs?" And a sign of ejaculatory relief when the word "gravity" is uttered? How does this entire business of "explanations" work?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:04 pm You're just playing word games.
You are just being uncharitable. As usual.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503340 time=1616261451 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503335 time=1616259888 user_id=15238]
It's a theory that Means that effect,
[/quote]
So you are necessarily appealing to causal reasoning here. Each effect must have a cause. OK...

Which theory do you think Means the effect that is existence itself? What is the cause of that effect?

[quote=Advocate post_id=503335 time=1616259888 user_id=15238]
and it's not a theory like guess, as you seen to intend, but in the scientific sense, as in that which best explains all available evidence.
[/quote]
Pray do tell how "gravity" explains anything about people falling from cliffs.

Which part of the observation confused you at first? Which part of your understanding/psychology would've been deeply unsettled in the absence of the theory of "gravity"?

Is it the anxiety caused by the dangling question "Why do people fall when pushed from cliffs?" And a sign of ejaculatory relief when the word "gravity" is uttered? How does this entire business of "explanations" work?

[quote=Advocate post_id=503335 time=1616259888 user_id=15238]
You're just playing word games.
[/quote]
You are just being uncharitable. As usual.
[/quote]

Existence itself encompasses causality, it is not itself casual. But everything within existence is casual. Here you're trying to use the same argument across completely different levels of understanding reality. That can't be done.

Language is descriptive. The word gravity refers to the attractive relationship between things relative to their mass. You want something more that that? To what end?
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:42 pm Existence itself encompasses causality, it is not itself casual. But everything within existence is casual.
Special pleading.

Why does people falling from cliffs require an "explanation", and a causal one at that?
Why does existence not require an "explanation"?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:42 pm Here you're trying to use the same argument across completely different levels of understanding reality.
Further special pleading and equivocation. How many different ways of "understanding reality" are there?

What does it even mean "to understand reality"?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:42 pm Language is descriptive.
Aye. It's descriptive. I am describing that a person falls from a cliff when pushed off.

What are you describing?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:42 pm The word gravity refers to the attractive relationship between things relative to their mass.

How and why is this even relevant to the fact that people fall when pushed off cliffs?
Advocate wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:42 pm You want something more that that? To what end?
Huh? I didn't even want this much. You furnished it freely. To what end?
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by trokanmariel »

Proof, is seeking the capitalist mission of options of perception - self-imposed options of perception - in which the exposure identity in question is escape route as secret/non-secret identity of ignoring the bait.

Ignoring the bait: it's a reference, ironically, due to a recent philosophical conundrum I experienced relative to the confrontation of cultural consequence, to magic people's own privacy over their slot machine mythology. Their slot machine mythology, specifically, is about the insanity of livelihood, and the insanity of the self.

Proof: in dealing with the mythology, of its fair enough much length of time in preparation for me, I am forced to even contemplate the outside implication of the apparatus, even relative to the cloning system of peoples relative to the mythology being an obvious bankrupt truth.
Essentially, the questioning of real people, can be a macro story of gravitation to real people emotion relative to the apparatus's scheme. But, what does this mean?

Is it a system of psychology, against the reaching the destination via chronology story (mysteriously, Ethan hunt has identified this), in which the latter idea is my own story? I refer to RTDVC, because of a recent exposure I made public, with the identity being RTDVC's link to bad weather being a capitalism to daylight (a lucky metamorphosis idea).
What does it mean?


The macro story, of gravitation to real people. It is a tragedy of left-wing transcendence having the perfect get out clause already. I say this, in the meaning of body glamour's own left-wing transcendence (Lia Haddock from Limetown's reality) being up, as in finished I suppose, and as a reference to the abstract LWT not denoting body glamour's evil creation of self-symmetry as evil revelation, with the identity of this theme being sex vindication to publication.

So, there is writing is from sex ideology, intrinsically connected to gravitation to BG, now combined with the free algebra direction via publication / publication awareness.
The story, of free algebra's direction levels. It consists of language of course, and of course, it consists of proof.
Where does this attitude come from?

The underlying apparatus, of relying on bad weather as a capitalism to daylight: first, there is the underlying apparatus aspect, which is ostensibly linked to my original perception politics of underlying apparatus, but, there is then the truth; it might be platforms moving around, as white.

Why white?
Well, for one, daylight is white, which may mean that time is called on computation escapes. Specifically, computation escapes refers to the universal behaviour (Frankenweenie's edit) science of deflection, of course, however, the obviousness identity construct is able to disappear.

Obviousness: the overall reason for puzzle language. Could it be a snap pendulum, as a means to work with the aforementioned BG problem of evil creation of evil symmetry, relative to left to right magic?

Sociology's switching on and off; its TV advert quickness, its rhetoric heat, its not to tell ethos, its listings of ideas as uniformity (like Screen Rant); it's all the possible mockery of obvious trying to help the puzzle be its lie.

Back to free algebra physics ideology:
FAPI, is a long time associate of investigation, therefore denoting a proof system of vindication; of course, i previously referred to sex to vindication, relating to data publication/meta publication, and I believe - as a personal politics manifestation - that FAPI is a proof system of sex to vindication, in a way that helps body glamour resolve its dilemma of publication's naturally being owned by BG meaning the demotion of BG's reality (Megan Fox from the kitchen of JB owns this);

Moreover:
humanity's safeguards, of knowing the mystery, via daylight, concentration of activity schemes, ergo emotion from capitalism aristocracy, and sleep, can be tied to this resolution.
About that inter option - emotion from capitalism aristocracy . . Anthony Higgins is here, from San Francisco


The edition, of FAPI being a correct direction madness, juxtaposed with EFCA's cover story/or deconstruction through science construct of spirituality from nastiness, is able to lose its vindication, relative to a macro edition of the theme of escape routes using safety; namely, the science of going to sleep.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Phil8659 »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
That is not even a complete sentence. True to what?
here is something on the order of a complete sentence: Psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language which are functionally resident in the mind as grammar systems.
Or you can say something as, literacy is the ability to say what you see, and if you can do that, then your statement is true.
A life form acquires information by sense, the perceptible. They then process that data in accordance with grammar systems. However, as a grammar system is some thing, it is also then a standard of behavior. But then, there is no such standardization of grammar systems today. So, true to what?

Now, if a grammatical statement is true, it can only be true to the standards of behavior by which that grammar system is constructed. And as every system of grammar is a method of utilizing binary recursion, where is there such a work which demonstrates the four distinct method one can use to effect binary recursion:Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry?

Ask your computer: it can process all information, and effect every kind of behavior, all the product of simple binary recursion, or what Plato called Dialectic, speech in accordance with the two parts of a thing, relatives and correlatives.

Plato posed the question this way: Can Virtue be taught? And then made the statement, if there are no teachers of virtue, then it cannot be taught. In short, you cannot learn virtue, or truth, if no one is yet smart enough to teach it and those smart enough to learn it. Truth and Virtue are intelligible, while being true and false are perceptible.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:30 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
That is not even a complete sentence. True to what?
here is something on the order of a complete sentence: Psychology is commensurate with the principles of Language which are functionally resident in the mind as grammar systems.
Or you can say something as, literacy is the ability to say what you see, and if you can do that, then your statement is true.
A life form acquires information by sense, the perceptible. They then process that data in accordance with grammar systems. However, as a grammar system is some thing, it is also then a standard of behavior. But then, there is no such standardization of grammar systems today. So, true to what?

Now, if a grammatical statement is true, it can only be true to the standards of behavior by which that grammar system is constructed. And as every system of grammar is a method of utilizing binary recursion, where is there such a work which demonstrates the four distinct method one can use to effect binary recursion:Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry?

Ask your computer: it can process all information, and effect every kind of behavior, all the product of simple binary recursion, or what Plato called Dialectic, speech in accordance with the two parts of a thing, relatives and correlatives.

Plato posed the question this way: Can Virtue be taught? And then made the statement, if there are no teachers of virtue, then it cannot be taught. In short, you cannot learn virtue, or truth, if no one is yet smart enough to teach it and those smart enough to learn it. Truth and Virtue are intelligible, while being true and false are perceptible.
That is a complete sentence. Things are true in two ways: a posteriori and a priori.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Phil8659 »

bahman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:20 pm
That is a complete sentence. Things are true in two ways: a posteriori and a priori.
[/quote]

Being a sycophant is not a recourse to authority. No man, or doctrine is an authority on grammar. As Language is Universal and Intelligible, while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible, the authority for grammar is language and language is a physical fact which is grasped by the intelligent, not invented by them.

So, how does truth differ from itself by being before and after, and before and after what? Before lunch and after dinner?

Have you ever heard that: "The relative difference between terms is not predicable of either term."?
Last edited by Phil8659 on Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
The meaning of proof is meaningless.

To prove implies there is something to prove.

To prove something would mean to physically see it.

But, the seer can never be seen, it is only known as a concept, and a concept knows nothing.
Post Reply