Re: Dissident versus ASP
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 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?
=> does not mean "equal to or greater than"; it means "implies".
> > 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.
I did. I formulated the dissident test long before I even *knew* of
"the ASP loophole". I therefore did not formulate it as some strategy
for keeping people from closing it.
Reply to: