I spent hours arguing this with her yesterday, she's too dense to understand. She also doesn't understand the basic definition of the word "proof" and contradicts herself constantly. She literally posted a comment in one of her threads yesterday saying "I'm not trying to prove anything..." and then tries to argue that her work consists of "proofs" without even understanding what that means (and I provided very clear explanations, in terms of their mathematical definition, for the definitions of proofs and related terms and how they work from a mathematical logic standpoint). Anytime she doesn't understand the terminology, she just ignores what you're trying to tell her. Answer a simple question, Sally. Why did you post this: https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3145573/17893446 in which you specifically say "I am not trying to prove anything..." and then subsequently make countless posts attacking my criticism of your incessant and inaccurate use of the word "proof" applied to your work? You also won't answer my questions about what background in proofs or logic of any kind that you have (for the record, logic can be studied from multiple perspectives - usually mathematics, computer science, or philosophy - I'll accept any one of these but I don't think you have ANY sort background in logic, proofs, or anything related - if you do, just answer the question). Why do you refuse to acknowledge basic mathematical definitions of the term 'proof'? Your interpretation of a word does not simply make it so. You can have an opinion about your decodes, but call them that, don't inaccurately use terms that you very clearly do not understand.  Now for today's math lesson, Sally: Do you understand what is meant by the logical statement "x implies y"? How about "y implies x"? Together, these create an equivalency: "x is equivalent to y". If you want to PROVE that your derivation/decode is THE correct decode of a Trump tweet, you have to demonstrate both directions. You are ONLY showing that a Trump tweet COULD be decoded to fit your explanation. The entire other half of the proof is left empty. To make that a proof, you need to show that your interpretation is the ONLY possible decode. You haven't even attempted that. You could alternately show that ANOTHER interpretation/decode could not possibly produce the Trump tweet in question. This would be the logical equivalent of "proof by contradiction" - you assume something you expect to be false (e.g. that some other decode can be derived from the Trump tweet) and then arrive at a contradiction, thereby showing your original assumption to be false (that some other decode can be derived from that tweet). In terms of logic, this is showing that !x implies !y. Applying basic boolean logic to this shows that !x => !y is equivalent to y => x (=> means "implies"), and you have now correctly proved the "other" direction that is omitted from every single one of your decodes, which is why they are not proofs. I'm happy to go over whatever you don't understand in the math, but you clearly aren't here to learn anything - I've extended you an olive branch time and time again by offering to clearly explain this to you privately in terms you can understand, but you have no interest in any kind of feedback that runs contrary to your work. Do you understand what is meant by the terms !x and !y, or would you like me to explain that to you also? How about the difference between a (logical) "if" statement and an "if, and only if" statement?