Ah yes, that would be Karl Popper's concept of Falsifiability of a hypothesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F

Ah yes, that would be Karl Popper's concept of Falsifiability of a hypothesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability That's what we are debating here: is this claim that use of UML is always markedly better when modelling any problem domain is true as observed through a sufficient number of data points? I'm poking holes in that hypothesis because there's always n + 1 conceivable use case where the opposite is true. And I'm basing myself on set theory and computational algebra. The crux is 'sufficient' because all use cases that could be moddeled with UML being equal, prove to me that there is a finite amount of use cases. Hard answer: you can't. Moreover, there is no way you can prove to me that each and any use case is solvable with UML in an efficient way without actually solving said use case. Check Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox. Perfectly applicable to this question. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_G...