Mother said,”let us invite some friends on our son’s birthday.” ]]>

An example is trying to make a proof by contradiction. In this case, we assume that the hypothesis is true and try to derive a contradiction. Now this type of proof will involve all sorts of observations of the past and observations into the future. We don’t have all those observations yet, and so the proof continues by assuming hypothesis is true and trying to derive a contradiction from it with each new observation made. Since we haven’t obtained that contradiction yet, it doesn’t prove that the hypothesis is true. It just means haven’t gotten to a line of the proof that has the contradiction in it.

]]>I form a conjecture that life exists on Kepler 22 b. Lets imagine a future scenario which allows me to travel with ease to Kepler 22 b. It is true that my conjecture can be easily falsified by arriving there and finding no signs of life on the planet. But is it not also true that If I arrive there and find life on the planet my conjecture has been verified? Does Popper not suggest that a scientific theory can never be truly verified but falsified or have I somehow misunderstood? I know this was posted a while ago but would love to be enlightened on this matter ]]>

A&B= ~(A–>~B).

Negation outside the brackets, with A connected to a Negated B by Conditional inside the brackets.

]]>Maybe I’m missing something, but the post says `Conjunction (&) = ~(A→B)`. Shouldn’t that be `Conjunction (&) = ~(A→~B)`? Maybe I’m just missing something — is the post correct? Thanks! ]]>

Conditional: A–>B

Disjunctive: ~A–>B

Conjunction: ~(A–>~B)

I suppose you would also describe the people of England as ‘the English tribe’? (Tsk, tsk)

Unfortunately, once I brought myself to ignore ur arrogance and did read the entire post, I actually found it very stimulating!

]]>