It depends on what you mean by 'beating' the theorem, doesn't it? If you mean that the theorem is actually wrong, then I agree— the proof works and you can't a

It depends on what you mean by 'beating' the theorem, doesn't it? If you mean that the theorem is actually wrong, then I agree— the proof works and you can't actually avoid its conclusions given its assumptions. But I think we can agree that for many (most?) practical symbol-systems in their particular contexts, the signals are actually high redundant as viewed against a particular basis, so slavishly applying the conclusions of the sampling theorem will cause you to miss the possibility of side-stepping its assumptions entirely. Whether you're really in a position to take advantage of the latent priors in the signal very much depend on the tools at your disposal—obviously you will not be extracting speech with smart priors if all you have is analog filters at your disposal.