[JadeNB]

> No, I take issue with this phrasing as well. There are things that can neither be proven or disproven (by godel's theorem), proving that disproving it is impossible would not have been sufficient.

Yes, but this is only a trivial mis-speaking in what is obviously meant to be a description of proof by contradiction: proving something by showing that its opposite is impossible (not that disproving it is impossible).