I think saying “it is possible to be 100% certain that a perpetual motion machine is 100% impossible” would be a forgivable exaggeration.
since Forrest did not provide the explicit proof (that you expected to find in that essay)
I expected to find a proof because the article makes reference to “our proof” and also claims a level of confidence that seems to imply they have a proof. (Or at least a precise argument.)
If you are implying that there is an explicit proof and it’s just not in the essay, I think it would be helpful to provide a link to it. This is what I would have expected to find in the essay.
(Note that this is not the only or even main reason I dismissed the article, I was just listing the nonstandard usage of the words “proof” and “100% confidence” as one thing that would turn off most researchers. I also think it’s bad for clear communication but it’s not the end of the world.)
I think saying “it is possible to be 100% certain that a perpetual motion machine is 100% impossible” would be a forgivable exaggeration.
I expected to find a proof because the article makes reference to “our proof” and also claims a level of confidence that seems to imply they have a proof. (Or at least a precise argument.)
If you are implying that there is an explicit proof and it’s just not in the essay, I think it would be helpful to provide a link to it. This is what I would have expected to find in the essay.
(Note that this is not the only or even main reason I dismissed the article, I was just listing the nonstandard usage of the words “proof” and “100% confidence” as one thing that would turn off most researchers. I also think it’s bad for clear communication but it’s not the end of the world.)