Sorry. I have neither energy nor time to explain at present. Needless to say, your comments are either indicative of a lack of understanding of Mathematics, or you just want to argue to be funny.
Well, yes, I was always slow at advanced Math(s),
and the (other) point wasn't exactly to be funny, but to poke fun at people who are too sure of themselves to make absolute statements. And yes, me guilty of that like most everyone else. But wisdom lets us know when we're stepping in our own goo (i.e. arguments).
Sorry also if my sense of humor is lacking at the moment.
No problem. Mine is solar-powered too.
Simply stated, *everything* in Mathematics is defined or stated as axiom, even that which is defined to be undefined. That's why it is possible to construct a proof that has absolute proof. It's also why you can remove some types of singularities, like the value of the function sin x/x when x=0, and define the value at that point to be a specific constant.
Hence caveats and details. One should not make absolute statements; history has shown that there's a beginning and an end to just about everything; it doesn't mean that Truth ceases to be (if it ever was), it just means that an absolute statement cannot encompass everything it's trying to encompass.
Mathematics are a human language that represent concepts. The concepts may be absolutely true, but the language we use for them has certain flaws that we cannot make absolutely absolute statements with it.
This is where we err: that a statement is true a billion times out of a billion and one is not an absolute statement; it represents a truth but it's not an absolute truth.
1 = 1 is absolutely true, as far as we know. It is true because it is a concept defined by itself; so circular and tight you cannot break it.
Sin(0)/0 = 1 is true. That 0/0 = undefined is also true. Absolutists would stop there and claim the first statement is false.
As you frustratingly stated, there's no time to explain and we could go on but you and I know the snooze-fest that would be.
The point is that you can argue
to death that your point is true, but to debunk an absolute statement takes energy. I wonder if there's a formula to describe the amount of energy it takes to dispute an absolute statement. Surely Cognitive Dissonance is one of the variables.
Anyway, extremely long rant short: no absolute statement is true. It may be true beyond our lifetimes, but it is bound to be disproved. Language is flawed, and like Simon said, it's meant to convey an idea. Language evolves partly when we know when it (language) cannot state or no longer states what it meant. If language were absolutely true it would never mutate. And that is just based on a hypothesis.
😉