> It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always.

I had the exact same thought too. I am fairly confident Jeff does appreciate the nuance. But even so, it doesn't protect you from your own blind spots.

Not saying I found one, I'm not versed enough along the same chain of thought.
Jeff's biggest issue may well be that no one else seems to be into the same rabbit hole deep enough to challenge his work.

unboiled

Haha, maybe I spend some time on it, but I hardly trust myself to do the work perfectly. Proofs are hard.

your post idea sounds very interesting. I'm no logician, so I think I would find it quite educational.

Scoresby

I missed that physics woo-woo post when you made it. It seems somewhat related to a thought I've had about the sheer number of "if P then Q" statements Jeff makes in his theories. I dont know if Jeff appreciates the significance of a logical statement like that, it can't be right most of the time to be valid, it needs to be right always. I've been tossing around the idea of making a post about it to get thoughts from our local math proof nerds and lawyers.