- It’s not a proof
- If it was a proof, it would be circular
- It’s not falsifiable, because the ‘falsifications’ you give are just restated negations of the facts you started with.
But the big problem is that it’s the same terrible numerology you posted here previously.
So it’s not urgent, and you have no need for help.
It isn’t.
Copilot:[1]
No — the “proof” on that page is not mathematically valid, not historically sound, and is considered numerology by both mathematicians and theologians.
The only point of vague interest is whether or not you asked Copilot to evaluate your proof.
is the proof at A Formal Mathematical Model of The Holy Trinity correct ↩︎