[TChris]

You did not provide a proof the figure wasn’t a square. You provided evidence it wasn’t.

Umm, that's called a "proof" in geometry.

You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but that is a logical proof of a negative.

[spunkets]

I made the statement that a negative can not be proved regarding an implied context of negative realities. In particular the context was my exchange with a poster regarding the following statement.

"Theorem 28: There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter..."

This statement can not be proved and is thus not a theorem. It is simply a claim, that can not be substantiated.

The statement I made refers reality, not any logical system of representations. One can not prove a negative reality, nor provide evidence for a negative reality. All one has in this case is Occam's razor, or the KISS principle.

[spunkets]

" Umm, that's called a "proof" in geometry. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but that is a logical proof of a negative."

Ridiculous. You gave a figure which is not an element of geometry, it's an instance of reality. You attempted to mathematically prove it was something by definition, then applied the operation of negation. That can within geometry, but not in any application of geometry to reality. The figure is a triangle, because of the evidence the figure presents, not because that evidence can be proved.