Hm? I'm not sure I understand. I would think that disproving the nonexistence of something would be the same as demonstrating the existence of something. That

Hm? I'm not sure I understand. I would think that disproving the nonexistence of something would be the same as demonstrating the existence of something. That seems doable, on a sense at least. And I would think that disproving the existence of something could be done by deriving a contradiction from the assumption that the thing exists. This also seems possible. I'm guessing I am misunderstanding you in some way. Can you help me understand?