Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 5:36 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit wrote:
KDT stated in post
on
11/24/10 5:36 AM:

"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
over anyway.

That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
3000% more expensive. "

These type of math errors are common with the trolls...

Survey: http://nitobi.com/survey/
241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
Tim Adams:
-----
_80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
-----

And then there is Wally:
-----
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
-----
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
-----
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
-----

And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type
of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the
difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and
the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some
interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math:
-----
Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
proof?
-----
If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Dragging out your faulty math again, Snit
-----

And for a long time Steve argued:

Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation

Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.

Where you are getting confused, I suspect, is thinking "doubt" is the same
as "reasonable" doubt... and thinking that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
is the same as "proof".

A = B
B = C
A C

There is no way that is "absolutely true for all sane, honest and honorable
people". It is false. Period.

Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.

You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt",

Which is true. You continually confuse the two. It is likely it is your
confusion of the two which lead to your confusion, above.

yet, in
attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
also admitted:

The concept of "proof", in the above comments, was absolute proof. You got
confused and did not understand that.

Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof"." - Snit

A formal proof - logic and math. But that confused you. Got it.

That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
have *one single* true statement from which something else could
necessarily follow.

I had strong evidence but not absolute proof. The idea that lack of proof
leads to a valid refutation is an "argument from ignorance". And it is a
fitting term - your ignorance is what has lead you to be lost with this
topic. For years. I have little hope you will ever understand the concept.

So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
truth seeker. LOL!

You clearly are confusing ideas. Oh well. You have been doing so for
years.

LOL!



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]