Proof #1 that ritvikvada is wrong

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

>Again: I am not really interested to move on because I want you to remain

>defeated by me by not being able to refute my proofs.

 

Yes I can understand why do not wish to defend your position and move on.

If I had also so clearly been exposed and contradicting myself, I also

would want to avoid the issue and not move on. Please see below:

 

First you said:

 

>I took Krishnakant's statements, simply removed the word "not" in

>statement (2), and added the word "not" to statement (3), and used

>Krishnakant's statement to defeat himself. If you revert the change, then

>of course you will again get Krishnakant's statements."

(23 January 2005)

 

Here you clearly admit that you *finished* with a literal exact sequence of

words (statements (2) and (3)), by simply amending *one literal* word "not"

from Krishnakant's statements. This obviously can only occur if you

*begin* with an exact literal sequence of words to which you can simply

change *one* word. You then re-confirm that the exact literal sequence of

words you began with were provided by Krishnakant, by stating that if you

undo the change involving only one word, you again arrive at Krishnakant's

statements, which must be the exact literal sequence of words with which

you began with, and to which you made the one word change.

 

>This is what I did: I took Krishnakant's argument, then expressed it in my

>words, and then added or removed the word "not".

(31 January 2005)

 

Now you confess that it was NOT Krishnakant's statements to which you made

the amendment of just one word to arrive at your statements. But actually

it was YOUR statements (derived by your re-writing in your own words what

you think Krishnakant wrote) which you amended with the word "not" to

arrive at your finished statements.

 

>I did not write that I took Krishnakant's words. I wrote that I took

>Krishnakant's statements (= arguments)."

(2 February 2005)

 

Yet on 23 January 2005, as shown above, you did write that it was

Krishnakant's words you amended with simply *one word* to arrive at the

statements in your "proof" - see above. Also Krishnakant's arguments and

statements can *only* be expressed via an exact literal sequence of words

anyway (what else are they made up of - numbers?). How else did you

*read* them unless they consisted of an exact literal sequence of words?

And it can *only* be these exact literal sequence of words you could amend

with only *one* word in order to arrive at another exact literal sequence

of words, as claimed by you on 23 January.

 

The truth, as shown above, is that you actually amended YOUR statements to

arrive at the statements in your proof, but you originally claimed it was

Krishnakant's statements that you amended. Your mistake is now caught and

documented above in black and white, and faced with such clear-cut

evidence, it is understandable you will not want to defend what you wrote

here and instead simply dodge the issue.

 

Ys,

Deepak