Talk:3201: Proof Without Content - Revision history

Abacaxinera at 22:58, 6 April 2026

2026-04-06T22:58:09Z

Abacaxinera at 22:31, 6 April 2026

2026-04-06T22:31:24Z

184.94.17.26 at 20:25, 24 March 2026

2026-03-24T20:25:58Z

81.179.199.253: /* [proof needed] instead of [citation needed] */ 'Unsign'ing it. Also deheadering it.

2026-03-01T01:41:44Z

‎[proof needed] instead of [citation needed]: 'Unsign'ing it. Also deheadering it.

206.176.159.8: /* [proof needed] instead of [citation needed] */ new section

2026-03-01T01:09:42Z

‎[proof needed] instead of [citation needed]: new section

81.179.199.253 at 19:33, 5 February 2026

2026-02-05T19:33:50Z

220.253.102.206 at 09:06, 5 February 2026

2026-02-05T09:06:32Z

Gorzog63: Added an explanation of the validity of the proof

2026-02-03T06:30:56Z

Added an explanation of the validity of the proof

Gorzog63: Added an explanation of the validity of the proof

2026-02-03T05:38:24Z

Added an explanation of the validity of the proof

Gorzog63 at 05:35, 3 February 2026

2026-02-03T05:35:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 6 April 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:

	This proof is surprisingly similar to that of Godel's theorem. [[Special:Contributions/184.94.17.26\|184.94.17.26]] 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)NDK		This proof is surprisingly similar to that of Godel's theorem. [[Special:Contributions/184.94.17.26\|184.94.17.26]] 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)NDK
−
−	~~Why is this comic explanation marked as incomplete explanation? like it seems pretty complete to me.~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 6 April 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:

	This proof is surprisingly similar to that of Godel's theorem. [[Special:Contributions/184.94.17.26\|184.94.17.26]] 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)NDK		This proof is surprisingly similar to that of Godel's theorem. [[Special:Contributions/184.94.17.26\|184.94.17.26]] 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)NDK
		+
		+	Why is this comic explanation marked as incomplete explanation? like it seems pretty complete to me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 24 March 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	; [proof needed] instead of [citation needed]		; [proof needed] instead of [citation needed]
	whoever put that there is a genius. {{unsigned ip\|206.176.159.8\|01:09, 1 March 2026}}		whoever put that there is a genius. {{unsigned ip\|206.176.159.8\|01:09, 1 March 2026}}
		+
		+	This proof is surprisingly similar to that of Godel's theorem. [[Special:Contributions/184.94.17.26\|184.94.17.26]] 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)NDK

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 But a box is still content.  Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content.  I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin. {{unsigned ip|220.253.102.206|09:06, 5 February 2026}}
-== [proof needed] instead of [citation needed] ==
+; [proof needed] instead of [citation needed]
+whoever put that there is a genius. {{unsigned ip|206.176.159.8|01:09, 1 March 2026}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 1 March 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:

	But a box is still content. Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content. I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin. {{unsigned ip\|220.253.102.206\|09:06, 5 February 2026}}		But a box is still content. Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content. I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin. {{unsigned ip\|220.253.102.206\|09:06, 5 February 2026}}
		+
		+	== [proof needed] instead of [citation needed] ==
		+
		+	whoever put that there is a genius.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 5 February 2026
Line 33:		Line 33:
	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, maybe it is a proof that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to! [[User:Gorzog63\|Gorzog63]] ([[User talk:Gorzog63\|talk]]) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)		If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, maybe it is a proof that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to! [[User:Gorzog63\|Gorzog63]] ([[User talk:Gorzog63\|talk]]) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

−	But a box is still content. Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content. I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin.	+	But a box is still content. Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content. I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin. {{unsigned ip\|220.253.102.206\|09:06, 5 February 2026}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 5 February 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:

	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, maybe it is a proof that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to! [[User:Gorzog63\|Gorzog63]] ([[User talk:Gorzog63\|talk]]) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)		If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, maybe it is a proof that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to! [[User:Gorzog63\|Gorzog63]] ([[User talk:Gorzog63\|talk]]) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
		+
		+	But a box is still content. Any possible method of delineating an empty area as an empty area is actually in some sense content. I have discovered a truly marvellous method for dealing with this problem, and it is noted in the margin.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 3 February 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)		I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

−	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, it is a proof ~~that~~ that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to.	+	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, maybe it is a proof that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to! [[User:Gorzog63\|Gorzog63]] ([[User talk:Gorzog63\|talk]]) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:38, 3 February 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)		I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

−	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, it is a proof that ~~you can refer to~~ something -- the ~~proposed (or supposed)~~ proof -- ~~that has no content~~.	+	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, it is a proof that that something with no content -- the purported proof -- can be referred to.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 3 February 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)		I am not convinced. [[User:Commercialegg\|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg\|talk]]) 18:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

−	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, it is a proof that ~~one~~ can refer to something -- the proposed (or supposed) proof -- that has no content.	+	If the empty box (or just it’s empty content) is a proof in the first place, then it is a convincing proof of the conjecture that a proof can have no content, and hence, since it is a convincing proof, and it has no content, it is a proof of the conjecture that a convincing proof can have no content. But is it a proof in the first place? Well, it is a proof that you can refer to something -- the proposed (or supposed) proof -- that has no content.