[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dissident versus ASP

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:26:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > > 	Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
> > You're not making any sense.
> Because it's logical equivalence, not numerical equality.

a^b * a^c >= a^(b+c) is true, but a^b * a^c <= a^(b+c) isn't true? Or are
the rules different for ideas that conform to Peano's axioms, than ideas
that prefer modus ponens?

> I agree that the dissident test + the practical objections imply that
> there is probably no way to close any of the things called "the ASP
> loophole".  

No, you don't agree because that's not what I'm saying. The whole point
of this is to get rid of "probably"s and work out what is _actually
the case_.

> I do not agree with the claim that "the dissident test is just another
> way of saying that the only ways your allowed to close the ASP
> loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable."

That's nice. Disprove it.

Unfortunately it looks like you don't have enough of a handle on logical
argument to even understand what that means. Yeesh.

> Rather, the dissident test arises [...]

It doesn't matter how it "arises". It matters what it *implies*. In
particular, that it limits the ways of solving the ASP loophole through
licensing to those that are technically objectionable.

> Moreover, the <= direction suggests that the only reason for the
> dissident test would be to keep "the ASP loophole" open.  

Nonsense. There was _no_ value judgement implied, and the only conclusion
to be drawn is that *dropping* the dissident test is one of exactly two
ways of allowing people to *close* the ASP loophole.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpEYGvpntmWQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: