.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 387
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 78
Date:         Mon, 17 Jul 89 12:10:32 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: double think
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 14 Jul 89 21:56:06 EDT from 

>Homer writes:
>> Subject: double think
>|
>|
>|      Perhaps some of you are having similar problems with the
>| multiple negative double think used in a previous posting.
>|
>|      Thus I here by give an example and carry it to completion.
>|
>|      YOU CAN PROVE that YOU CAN NOT PROVE that YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
>|
>|      So consider the statement,
>|
>a)|      YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
>|
>b)|      If I prove it true, I contradict it.
>|
>|      Thus I can NOT prove it true.
>
>       No you didn't, you proved it true. (b)
>
>|
>|      QED.
>|
>|      I have PROVEN:
>|
>|      I CAN NOT PROVE:
>|
>|      I CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
>|
>|
>>-- End of excerpt from Homer
>
>More doublethink here.  From the contradiction above: If a then ~a,
>EVERYTHING follows!  So I can say that ALL things are proven from the
>above 'proof'.  Nonsense.
>
>n
>
     Norman babes, your mind is in serious trouble.

     The above proof that you cant prove that you cant prove anything
is totally valid straight forward logic.

     Your continued statement that it is double think shows
either that you have not understood it, maybe taking a negative the
wrong way or something, or that you don't know standard logic,
or else your circuits need replacing.

     In fact the proof that you cant prove that you cant prove anything,
is a proof of something, therefore it is a proof that you CAN prove
something, namely that you cant prove that you cant prove anything.

     Look its really simple.

     Someone says, 'Nothing can be proven, proof of all kinds is
impossible.'

     You say to him, 'Prove it'.

     If he DOES prove it, he has contradicted himself.  Therefore
WE have proven that he CANT prove it.  Since we have proven something,
namely that he cant prove his statement, we have proven that something
CAN be proven.

     Thus proof of some things is possible.

     Now Norman, saying that this is all double think does not reflect
well on your intelligence.  Please think it through before you challenge
my logic.

 Homer               Adore-l list         7/17/89*double think