Bryan Garner, a Dallas lawyer who heads a company that teaches lawyers to write more clearly and who edited the most recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary, said "Language of the Law" proved that "the argument that legalese is more precise is poppycock".
But the Golden State has proven that argument wrong before.
And the argument, having proved that memory attracts us towards the objects of desire, proves also that the impulses and the desires and the moving principle in every living being have their origin in the soul.
Under certain assumptions on the vital rates, using a fixed point argument, he proved that the model has a unique nonnegative solution.
Using the Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction argument, they proved that the system (1.2) has spike solutions, which concentrate near a nondegenerate critical point of the potential V.
Tony Soprano, the argument goes, proved that viewers would watch "unhappy, morally compromised, complicated, deeply human" characters and, TV being what it is, spawned a legion of such characters, from Nate Fischer and Vic Mackey to ultimate antihero, Walter White from Breaking Bad.
More worryingly, Tarski was able to prove liar paradox inconsistency using an arithmetical argument that proved that true was not definable, and thus languages are either 'semantically open' or partly incoherent.
That doesn't prove that the argument fails, but it does mean that you're going to have your work cut out for you if you're going to use this route to arguing for the existence of a soul.
While this shouldn't dissolve concerns over how Facebook chooses stories for its Trending Topics, it proves that the argument isn't about whether conservative news is distributed on Facebook.
However, our results prove that theoretical arguments in favour of the Laplace prior do have real practical weight, in that the computational advantages with the Gaussian are paid for by a much worse predictive accuracy, and identification needs significantly more measurements than for the Laplace.
