|
|
|
|
|
|
by dellamonica
1295 days ago
|
|
|
You are the one failing basic logic. Your statement is logically true but vacuous because your conditional is false! If <absurd condition> then <some even more absurd thing> is a perfectly sound logic statement. I explained already how reduction proofs work. Why don't you read on that instead of posting non sense? |
|
|
None of what you are saying is even remotely a response to my criticism. You can tell me that I failed basic logic all you want, but your reading comprehension sucks so much that you still have not been able to figure out what I am even talking about.
I think you still haven't understood that I never said his intended reasoning was wrong. But that his statement as written is plainly false. There is no argument against the logic by me, so the fact that you keep going on and on about "logic" just shows that you haven't even understood yet that nobody disagrees with the logic. I know how a proof by contradiction works, you do not seem to want to understand that "computes" and "implements" are different words. And that by repeatedly arguing that the authors reasoning is valid if you change the statement to make it correct you are proving my point again and again.