Editing Talk:1724: Proofs
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Man, Reductio ad absurdum never made any logic. If we could assume any thing, why use logic? | Man, Reductio ad absurdum never made any logic. If we could assume any thing, why use logic? | ||
− | Oh wait, it has already been covered in XKCD | + | Oh wait, it has already been covered in XKCD |
"Dark magic" proofs are centered around properties of functions, and abstract concepts, rather than manipulating the functions themselves?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC) | "Dark magic" proofs are centered around properties of functions, and abstract concepts, rather than manipulating the functions themselves?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |