Re: Archaeopteryx flight

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

Dinogeorge wrote:
<My concern was to describe what a proof >is<, not whether the proof might
or might not be logical, or convincing, or whatever.>
Or correct.

Ok, ok:
...[A] mathematical proof is a [possibly] logical ... sequence of statements
that extends from a set of statements ... assumed to be true to a[n
unconvincing] proposition whose truth is ... [argued] by the existence of
the sequence.

Something about cladistics here...  Nah.

Just a reminder of Dinogeorge's original statement:
... [A] mathematical proof is a logically constructed sequence of statements
that extends from a set of statements known or assumed to be true to a
proposition whose truth is established by the existence of the sequence.