. Starbux . Huntsville ? You sent your kids to Starbucks for 5 hours ? <| sep |> an extremely detailed line of logical reasoning . I ' m not impressed by prestigious jargon , and yes , this proof is very questionable for several reasons . First I gave a counter example . No matter how well you think you ' ve shown a theorem , a counter example is a definitive proof that the theorem is false and that your demonstration must be faulty . In maths , entire theories and books can be and have been proven wrong by a single line argument . Then , the logic of the proof is faulty for numerous reasons as I have argued in other commentaries here . Finally the proof is misleading . If that all truths are knowable by somebody at some time might seem to be a very admissible statement , on the other hand pp Kp is a stronger assertion than its english translation would lead us to think . Something makes me think that you didn ' t actually read the linked article . And something makes me think you don ' t actually understand what you read . I think that if you want to critique such an argument , you should at least rise to its level . Certainly not . When answering an argument from prestigious jargon that is purposefully confusing , one should not use the same level of prestigious jargon . It would only add to the confusion . That ' s not because an argument is complicated and difficult to understand that it ' s a better one .