3201: Proof Without Content - Revision history

81.179.199.253: Trying too hard. It was already a decently funny faux-note as a slight amendment to the usual., before muddying the waters completely.

2026-03-08T01:02:32Z

Trying too hard. It was already a decently funny faux-note as a *slight* amendment to the usual., before muddying the waters completely.

Eelitee at 00:43, 8 March 2026

2026-03-08T00:43:33Z

Eelitee at 00:43, 8 March 2026

2026-03-08T00:43:13Z

Eelitee: technically speaking

2026-03-08T00:42:59Z

technically speaking

Eelitee at 00:42, 8 March 2026

2026-03-08T00:42:24Z

148.85.255.18: Edited several sentences for clarity and correctness; see changes for yourself, I'm bad at describing this

2026-02-18T21:30:09Z

Edited several sentences for clarity and correctness; see changes for yourself, I'm bad at describing this

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-02-03T09:34:32Z

‎Explanation

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2026-02-03T09:26:16Z

‎Explanation

81.179.199.253: /* Explanation */ Simplify.

2026-02-03T01:04:01Z

‎Explanation: Simplify.

203.164.245.160: /* Explanation */ the box means QED

2026-02-03T00:58:08Z

‎Explanation: the box means QED

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:  ]]‎ ‎  ‎ ‎ ]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|proof needed]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof: ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎    ‎ ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:  ]]‎ ‎  ‎ ‎ ]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:           ‎ ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof: ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎  ‎    ‎ ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:           ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:           ‎ ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|proof needed]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|incomplete proof:           ]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 {{incomplete|This page IS THE PROOF OF ITS OWN CREATION. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. The comic gives an example of a proof without any content at all, which proves its own existence. The empty box could be construed as the rectangle denoting what has been proved ('QED'), and since it is part of the diagram, it avoids being content. However, it claims to be a ''convincing'' proof, in which it might fall a bit short.
+This comic refers to {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. However, this comic presents a proof with no content whatsoever inside the ''Proof:'' box, and is instead apparently proven by the existence of the proof itself. The comic additionally suggests that this proof is ''convincing'', which is subjective.
-Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of all other conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|proof needed]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
+Note that this conjecture cannot be generalized and the proof only proves this special case: the vast majority of conjectures cannot be proven without content.<sup>[&#8203;[[285: Wikipedian Protester|proof needed]]]</sup> This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
 This could be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.
-The title text refers to another proof without content, that a conjecture without content could exist. This would imply a conjecture-proof pair with no content whatsoever. This could only be discussed indirectly, which is why it is mentioned and left as an {{w|Proof by Intimidation|exercise for the reader}}. Alternatively, the exercise could be forming the conjecture and proof itself if the comic is interpreted as a blank sheet of paper.
+The title text refers to another proof without content, that a conjecture without content could exist. This would imply a conjecture-proof pair with no content whatsoever. This could only be discussed indirectly, which is why it is mentioned and left as an {{w|Proof by Intimidation|exercise for the reader}}. Alternatively, the exercise could be forming the conjecture and proof itself if the conjecture-proof pair is interpreted as a blank sheet of paper.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.
-This could also be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is [[wikipedia:The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"]].
+This could also be a parody on scientists sometimes creating empty papers as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical, given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to suggest.) Another example of an academic article without words is {{w|The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of "Writer's Block"}}.
 The title text refers to another proof without content, that a conjecture without content could exist. This would imply a conjecture-proof pair with no content whatsoever. This could only be discussed indirectly, which is why it is mentioned and left as an {{w|Proof by Intimidation|exercise for the reader}}. Alternatively, the exercise could be forming the conjecture and proof itself if the comic is interpreted as a blank sheet of paper.

3201: Proof Without Content - Revision history

81.179.199.253: Trying too hard. It was already a decently funny faux-note as a *slight* amendment to the usual., before muddying the waters completely.

Eelitee at 00:43, 8 March 2026

Eelitee at 00:43, 8 March 2026

Eelitee: technically speaking

Eelitee at 00:42, 8 March 2026

148.85.255.18: Edited several sentences for clarity and correctness; see changes for yourself, I'm bad at describing this

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

81.179.199.253: /* Explanation */ Simplify.

203.164.245.160: /* Explanation */ the box means QED

81.179.199.253: Trying too hard. It was already a decently funny faux-note as a slight amendment to the usual., before muddying the waters completely.