[bbor]

I mean, I included a disclaimer... But regardless, you appear to be wrong on both counts (or at least contradicting Wikipedia):

1. "The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with OTHER MATTER and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

2. "A dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy composed of ABOUT 1000 up to several billion stars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy

Darn astrophysics majors being confident about astronomy! ;)

[t8sr]

1. Your argument is about the grammar of a sentence about black holes on Wikipedia? This isn’t some kind of gotcha.

2. I missed the dwarf part, but think about what you’re arguing: the mass range of a loosely defined category (the lower bound of a few thousands is not one I’ve ever heard, btw) that has nothing to do with the paper in question. Collections of stars of any kind produce light. This doesn’t. What are you saying?

What do you think physicists do all day?