3 ms·
> "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails" > That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bo
by aaronem 13y ago
> "You ask me proofs that it works, I can show you proofs that the lack of it really fails"
> That is so flawed from a logic point of view that I won't even bother.
Well, I don't blame you; trying to disprove p ⇒ q ∴ ¬q ⇒ ¬p would probably cost you some embarrassment.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- abraxasz 13y agoPlease, do replace "p" and "q" with whatever you had in mind then meditate on the meaning of "=>". If you still don't get it refer to doctoboggan's counter-example.
- theoh 13y agoMaybe it's something along the lines of "an effective security mechanism implies safety; if there is no safety then it follows that no effective security mechanism is in place"