Ah, we have somebody who isn't familiar with the Halting Problem, I see.

I'd take off my hat to you, sir, if I were wearing one.

Well, you don't need to say what P is because the definition is for the property of degeneracy, which can be applied to *any* topos. And we all know that e is approximately 2.718. So the only thing left is Q, which stands for the quality of the paper, which is clearly much less than 2.718.

Therefore every topos is degenerate.

And people find this hard to grasp?

The first two frames seem unrealistic. Logarithms, really? That would take an engineering *freshman* about 3 seconds to see through. And Klingon? I don't know anybody who has studied linguistics. But plenty of people who haven't could easily see that the question is nonsense. I don't think learning in this field is going to reduce that ability.

The last two frames, though...completely believable.

I hope at least that they chose these wisely enough to get a low Erdos number out of it.

That's not what the incompleteness theorems say. There are true statements in any sufficiently rich system of mathematics that cannot be proven. The theorems don't say which statements those are (except for the constructed examples). And they really don't say anything about physics, which is an empirical endeavor.

"the Cuba"?

Is that like "the Iraq, and such"?

Are you sure it's not one person with lots and lots of Hotmail accounts?

Is that you, Bob?

I ain't lookin' to compete with you,
Beat or cheat or mistreat you,
Simplify you, classify you,
Deny, defy or crucify you.
All I really want to do
Is, baby, be friends with you.

No true Scotsman would have such a small antenna!

Ah yeah, we can make up our own endings to anything, just to help us completely miss the point.

First of all, try and get the freakin' idiom right. It's toe, not tow.

Second, where's the evidence liberals are looking for a line to toe? You made some extraordinary claims that you weren't able to find any citation for:

Third, this is how you decide policy? Sounds like typical right-wing mindlessness to me.

Er, you can say it. The two aren't identical. But never say that correlation is not evidence of causation, because it is.

Ah, but it is.

Admittedly, I think this proof assumes that the absence of evidence is not due to coverup or just plain laziness -- although one could argue that absence of evidence of coverup or laziness is evidence for their absence.

Careful there.

Implication is conditional, but that is the only difference between implication and proof.

A = correlation
B = causation

"A imples B" is the same as "B or not A" (see the linked article). So your first clause is the same as "there is causation, or there is no correlation". Then, if we grant that there is correlation, it follows that causation is proven, which contradicts the second clause of your statement.

I think what you meant is that "correlation is evidence of causation". This is different from implication.