>That is what I said. I showed a mathematical statement and I showed how you could falsify it. >Since you said "mathematics is not falsifiable" I have shown your statement is not true.
You have taken it upon yourself to interpret "Mathematics is not falsifiable" as broadly as needed in order to confirm your own biases; and then proceeded to attack a strawman instead of a steelman. That's the lack of charity...
>You were the one who decided that the distinction between conjectures and theorems is important.
And you were the one who decided that it isn't.
What you have demonstrated is the falsification of "X is a theorem"; not the falsification of "mathematics is not falsifiable." - a hasty generalization fallacy.
Which doesn't demonstrate anything of import or relevance whatsoever. Obviously a non-theorem is not a theorem. This is no more interesting than demonstrating that non-Mathematics is not Mathematics.
This in no way diminishes or falsifies my own claim that theorems are unfalsifiable! And neither is Mathematics.
Because if you do falsify it - then it was never a theorem. By definition. Theorems are true, not false. A false theorem is a contradiction in terms.
Maybe Euler wasn't a Mathematician either. Who knows? Those sort of questions are undecidable.
...
> The presence of a counter-example to Sean Hunter's "theorem" simply demonstrates that it's not a theorem. It's a misnomer.
That is what I said. I showed a mathematical statement and I showed how you could falsify it. Since you said "mathematics is not falsifiable" I have shown your statement is not true. Do you see why?
You were the one who decided that the distinction between conjectures and theorems is important. I have now shown two examples of mathematics that was falsified.
Unless you're trying to say neither me nor Euler was a mathematician in which case we can agree about me but not about Euler.