> META discussion of theory -- names not needed, no lookups needed. > > All right, let's say, just for the sake of having somewhere to > start, that Absence of proof is not proof of absence. > > At what stage can one legitimately claim that absence of evidence is > proof of the absence of proof? > > I mean, at what stage are we allowed to be reasonable about it? > > [email protected] If there is no proof any conclusion is permanent (as in a woman's hairdo). I can prove my line from 1650 to 1790 (until someone turns up proof that does not currently exist and probably never existed). I merely note links which are only proven logically. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)