Re: Is Richard a Liar?

On 2024-05-16 15:34:48 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/15/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 19:34:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

*Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest*

 First you should prove that you know C.

 Not at all. Not in the least. Deductive proofs cannot rely
on an argument from authority.

 True but irrelevant. When someone sayes you are wrong, that does not
refer to any deductive proofs as you haven't presented deductive
proofs.

 None-the-less a single-valid-counter-example would prove that
I am wrong thus any claim that I am wrong lacking this required
valid counter-example is empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any
supporting reasoning: (EREBOASR).

That would be one way to prove that you are wrong but any other
proof is equally sufficient. Often a proof without a counter
example is shorter or clearer and therefore preferred. Of course
the way to prove depends on the nature of the particular one
of your errors one wants to point out.
No proof is needed if the error is sufficiently obvious (or thought
to be), for in those cases the error alone is a sufficient proof.
In any case, if there is no proof or the proof is not clear enough
you can always ask for a clarification.

Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
(and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
disregard for the truth.

No, it does not. A different kind of proof is sufficient to meet
the standard, and even a good justification of another kind.
--
Mikko