# The unique attribute proof

1. Oct 27, 2004

### Moses

The "unique attribute" proof..

Ok ok ok, we are not trying here to proof or disproof anything, but just analysing wether a prrof "tactic" is valid or not:

Is proofing an object that it is exist valid just by proofing the unique propery of that object exist? [The unique property definition here is the property which it is contributed only to that object]

An example for that which could sound crazy for some: Can we say that "electrons exist" just by the scientific processes build on thier unique properties from other "existed being"?

2. Oct 27, 2004

### hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
I'm afraid I don't understand quite what you're getting at here. Could you try rephrasing your question or otherwise clarifying it? Providing other examples, or re-stating the example you already gave, might be particularly useful.

3. Oct 27, 2004

Staff Emeritus
I think I understand. If a theoretical object is defined by a property that is unique to it, and that no other object, theoretical or otherwise may possess, must that object then exist? Right?

To that the answer is no, in general. In mathematics we show that a thing with a property is unique, and we show in a different proof that it exists. They aren't necessarily equivalent.

4. Oct 27, 2004

### Moses

Yeah, i think SelfAdjoint get almost what i meant with a bit mis understanding.

To make a clearer example for the example i guve at the beginning : Electrons are not "sensed" that any body can say "oh this electron is passin now from her" or "this one is noisy" but we "detect" some phenomenon and see some relations in realtiy among some objects, build on that we say that this "being" [here elecron] exsist in X places [e.g atom] since there is a negative moving charge (It could sound stupid if i say there is another object "act like" moving negative charge and wanna mislead us by thinking "it" is an electron)

SelfAdjiont, what i mean is: Can i say that this X object, which by its definition has the proerty Y which X is the only object has this property Y, just by proving that Y exist for X [BTW: assume that it is "agreed" that Y is for sure not for more than one object..At most one abject or at least none]

Sorry for unclarity in the previous post [BTW: is saying Sorry useful ]