A Quote by Mindy Grossman

The proof is in the results, and the proof will be in the ongoing ability to execute. — © Mindy Grossman
The proof is in the results, and the proof will be in the ongoing ability to execute.
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
To execute a man we don't need proof of his guilt. We only need proof that it's necessary to execute him. It's that simple.
A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of "accepting it as a proof".
What God declares the believing heart confesses without the need of further proof. Indeed, to seek proof is to admit doubt, and to obtain proof is to render faith superfluous.
Proof is boring. Proof is tiresome. Proof is an irrelevance. People would far rather be handed an easy lie than search for a difficult truth, especially if it suits their own purposes.
Be sceptical, ask questions, demand proof. Demand evidence. Don't take anything for granted. But here's the thing: When you get proof, you need to accept the proof. And we're not that good at doing that.
I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible.
I am obliged to interpolate some remarks on a very difficult subject: proof and its importance in mathematics. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians, are contemptuous about proof. I have heard Professor Eddington, for example, maintain that proof, as pure mathematicians understand it, is really quite uninteresting and unimportant, and that no one who is really certain that he has found something good should waste his time looking for proof.
In the "commentatio" (note presented to the Russian Academy) in which his theorem on polyhedra (on the number of faces, edges and vertices) was first published Euler gives no proof. In place of a proof, he offers an inductive argument: he verifies the relation in a variety of special cases. There is little doubt that he also discovered the theorem, as many of his other results, inductively.
Well, did he do it?" She always asked the irrelevant question. It didn't matter in terms of the strategy of the case whether the defendant "did it" or not. What mattered was the evidence against him -- the proof -- and if and how it could be neutralized. My job was to bury the proof, to color the proof a shade of gray. Gray was the color of reasonable doubt.
John was in constant need of proof of love and security and he was constantly testing people for that proof.
I worked every day there, so I knew all the details. But I needed only some proof. So the proof was photos.
Ghosts cannot be put on the witness stand, or have their fingerprints taken. They are completely proof against proof.
Is there any proof that I'm a bust? All there is proof of is that I have bad luck with injuries.
For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy.
You made a point about proof. In this sort of history we do nt have proof... Yet... the incontrovertibility of the evidence can be plain even when it is not documentary or complete.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!