It isn’t. That would be de-jure truth. My assumption is based on the fact that with my internal states of knowledge it is an obvious deduction (not inference, mind, this is mathematics). I also have some nice conversational arguments for it.
So you are personally persuaded of it, and have unstated arguments for it.
Also, the “proof” of the Tegmark 4 hypothesis tastes like it might run into some Gödelian complications.
Another remark which is much less interesting than production of the proof itself.
Other things I would call de-facto
These are things I would call “punting”, or personally comitting to.
So you are personally persuaded of it, and have unstated arguments for it.
Another remark which is much less interesting than production of the proof itself.
These are things I would call “punting”, or personally comitting to.
Is it your informed opinion that I should edit my comments in order to make my communications clear(er)?