# Erroneous Formula

If the derivation was valid in every step, yes. No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.

If the derivation was valid in every step, yes.
Sure, if the derivation isn't valid, the circular bit doesn't really matter. The argument then is invalid trivially, and can be dismissed on those ground.

So tell me, what part of the derivation you have provided here in this thread is invalid, thus making your claims invalid?

Ha ha. I edited post #101. So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity, does this make it untrue?

Yes if it was the only justification. But it could have another justification namely that it gives the formula a causation agent.

Ha ha. I edited post #101.
Let's take a look.

No. Ive got it wrong. It is that if the premise is true and the derivation is valid then the conclusion is true.
Yes, that's trivially correct, but it doesn't address the issue of circular reasoning.

So the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity,
Circular reasoning isn't elegant, quite the contrary. So if "the elegance of the formula is based on a circularity", it's quite an ugly formula.

does this make it untrue?
Depends on what you mean by "untrue". If you mean "false", then no, not necessarily. If you mean "not true", as in "you can't say it's true based on the reasoning provided", then yes.

In this particular case, we are talking science, so we have to add Occam's Razor to the mix. You admitted your claim is based on nothing more than imaginations, and you also admitted your derivations are circular. Combine these facts, and your claims can safely be rejected as false (scientifically speaking).

Yes if it was the only justification. But it could have another justification namely that it gives the formula a causation agent.
What is a "causation agent"?

What is a "causation agent"?

After analog to human action: The man moves the book. Then "the man" is the causation agent and "the book" is the subject of the causation.

After analog to human action: The man moves the book. Then "the man" is the causation agent and "the book" is the subject of the causation.
Then the answer is no: merely because an argument gives a causation agent to a formula, that doesn't provide any validity to the argument.

The question is if it makes the premise true.

The question is if it makes the premise true.
The validity of an argument has no bearing on whether the premises are true. That's also a matter of basic logic.

So the answer is again no: an argument giving a causation agent to a formula doesn't make the premise true.

So the answer is again no

Isn't it better than no causation agent.

Isn't it better than no causation agent.
Not inherently, no, and certainly not if it's false or unfounded.

My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.

My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
Reported to have this moved to pseudoscience.

My formula explains why there is an outgoing tau neutrino in a way that doesn't involve creation from Tau- - W-.
As both of us have just established together: this is merely your imagination, nothing more. You don't have evidence, you don't have calculations, you don't even have valid reasoning. You, once again, present it here as a fact, even after this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you. I cannot draw any other conclusion that this: you are being intellectually dishonest.

this misleading presentation has explicitly pointed out to you

That statement is entirely correct. The tau neutrino start to exist by pair production.

That statement is entirely correct. The tau neutrino start to exist by pair production.
1) That's not what I was talking about;
2) That's another point for which you've failed to provide any evidence, calculations, or valid reasoning.

So you're being intellectually dishonest again. Have you no sense of decency, sir?

being intellectually dishonest
Impossible