I like apples. I don't like apples. Therefore unicorns exist.

@Really The first two are the premises and the third is a statement that can be proven right.

@Luke73 [quote]Therefore unicorns exist.[/quote]
[quote]is a statement that can be proven right.[/quote]

GO FOR IT

@Really Ok.

1. We assume the premise "I like apples".
2. We assume the premise "I don't like apples".
3. Therefore the statement "I don't like apples or unicorns exist" must be true because of (1)
4. We know that the first part in (3) is wrong because of (2), the second part has to be true. Thus unicorns exist.

@Luke73 As soon as you produce a real unicorn I'll reconsider my conviction that "classical logic" is nothing more than silly wordplay well worth ignoring.

@Really It's not a word play. It's actual logic. I can write it in mathematical symbols as well, I just though in text form it would be easier to read.

And it works because from contradictory premises, any statement can be derived.

@Really Yes but I'm also right.

@Luke73 Assumptions & premises are not facts any more than the the unicorns whose existence you claim they can prove. The so-called logic you demonstrate appears designed to make arrant nonsense seem clever. I don't buy it.

@Luke73You may be right but not as right as I am

We assume the premise that I'm right.
We assume the premise that you are wrong,
It all fits

@Really If you believe I‘m wrong, then prove it.

@Luke73 Haha, you're a scream.

X equals minus B plus (or minus) the square root of: B squared minus Four times A times C, all over two times A. But you have to know what A. B & C are; and X is no unicorn anywsay. ....

https://youtu.be/h4bc9UwZsYs

@Really I‘m still waiting for the proof. I‘ve already proven the statement, so either you find a flaw in my proof or you proof it otherwise. But I can’t see why repeating the quadratic formula is relevant in anyway. Or how that even proves anything.

And maybe a tip for next time. Don’t write formulas as words, it can be ambiguous.