Erroneous Formula

If the derivation was valid in every step, yes. No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.
 
Willem said:
If the derivation was valid in every step, yes.
Click to expand...
Sure, if the derivation isn't valid, the circular bit doesn't really matter. The argument then is invalid trivially, and can be dismissed on those ground.

So tell me, what part of the derivation you have provided here in this thread is invalid, thus making your claims invalid?
 
Ha ha. I edited post #101. So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity, does this make it untrue?
 
Yes if it was the only justification. But it could have another justification namely that it gives the formula a causation agent.
 
Willem said:
Ha ha. I edited post #101.
Click to expand...
Let's take a look.

Willem said:
No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's trivially correct, but it doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning.

Willem said:
So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity,
Click to expand...
Circular reasoning isn't elegant, quite the contrary. So if "the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity", it's quite an ugly formula.

Willem said:
does this make it untrue?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by "untrue". If you mean "false", then no, not necessarily. If you mean "not true", as in "you can't say it's true based on the reasoning provided", then yes.

In this particular case, we are talking science, so we have to add Occam's Razor to the mix. You admitted your claim is based on nothing more than imaginations, and you also admitted your derivations are circular. Combine these facts, and your claims can safely be rejected as false (scientifically speaking).
 
Willem said:
After analog to human action: The man moves the book. Then "the man" is the causation agent and "the book" is the subject of the causation.
Click to expand...
Then the answer is no: merely because an argument gives a causation agent to a formula, that doesn't provide any validity to the argument.
 
Willem said:
The question is if it makes the premise true.
Click to expand...
The validity of an argument has no bearing on whether the premises are true. That's also a matter of basic logic.

So the answer is again no: an argument giving a causation agent to a formula doesn't make the premise true.
 
My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
 
Willem said:
My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
Click to expand...
As both of us have just established together: this is merely your imagination, nothing more. You don't have evidence, you don't have calculations, you don't even have valid reasoning. You, once again, present it here as a fact, even after this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you. I cannot draw any other conclusion that this: you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
Willem said:
That statement is entirely correct. The tau neutrino start to exist by pair production.
Click to expand...
1) That's not what I was talking about;
2) That's another point for which you've failed to provide any evidence, calculations, or valid reasoning.

So you're being intellectually dishonest again. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
 
Willem said:
There is another reason for dismissing the Weak Interaction. See "Quarks cannot Transform".
Click to expand...
That thread is in the pseudoscience section of the forum, strongly suggesting this reason you mentioned is pseudoscientific in nature. This is the science section; pseudoscientific reasons will not cut it here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top