> impossible to prove the absence of something.
If p => q, then ¬q => ¬p. So if p is "The goto fail was setup by the NSA", then surely we can come up with a reasonable q which could be (dis)provable?
If p => q, then ¬q => ¬p. So if p is "The goto fail was setup by the NSA", then surely we can come up with a reasonable q which could be (dis)provable?
if "setup by the NSA" then "goto fail"
not goto fail.
goto fail.
A possible q could be "someone from nsa communicated with someone from apple"
Another possible q could be "goto fail was introduced on purpose"
These specific qs might be difficult/impossible to disprove, but that doesn't mean that there is no q we can disprove.