Path: csiph.com!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:00:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <p8rp9r$b7n$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <p8piv7$nmb$7@dont-email.me> <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com> <p8rkmk$5i8$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spitfire.i.gajendra.net
X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1521576059 11511 166.84.136.80 (20 Mar 2018 20:00:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:00:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:8511

In article <p8rkmk$5i8$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 20/03/18 18:28, Chad wrote:
>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
>proof by contradiction.
>
>You're missing some:
>
>proof by repetition (it worked twice, so it works)
>proof by project manager (ready or not, it ships on Friday)
>proof by intimidation (I have a scary diagram, so we do it my way)
>
>I'm sure there are plenty more.

Proof by committee fiat.
Proof by advisor.
Proof by indignation.
Etc....

	- Dan C.