The Free Logic Foundation

The Free Logic Foundation

[Ian Grant]

Here's some more logic that they don't teach kids these days.

It is now nearly a month since I posted an 8 page text explaining how
to vastly extend the life-expectancy of the Free Software Foundation.

In that time I have received a total of three items of evidence (let's
call them exhibits) which show that there may indeed be some genuinely
intelligent people reading these lists. Two of these indications were
messages from the same person, but that's OK.

Here they are: the exhibits:

 1  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00015.html
 2  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00008.html
 3  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00028.html

What is interesting is that to many, these indications, exhibits 1&2
on the one hand, and exhibit 3 on the other, are of a remarkably
different character. One of them agrees with me, and the other does
not. Yet I claim that they both show clearly that they have read and
understood everything I wrote.

Now the question for the people who think they are logicians, or at
least, those that think they are _rational human beings,_ is this:

How is it that I can claim these people both understand what I wrote,
when one of them agrees with me, but the other doesn't?

And since I am pretty sure that no-one on these lists other than these
two people will understand this, I am just going to spoil it for
everyone else and tell you how it is.

It's because, although Stefan doesn't agree with me, he clearly
understands what I have said. The reason he doesn't agree is simply
that his personal experience, by which he judges truth, is different
from mine. The experience of Taylan on the other hand, concurs with
mine, and so Taylan and I make the same judgement of the truth of what
I say.

No one else who responded to anything I have said on these lists in
the past month has been able to demonstrate any understanding
whatsoever of what I wrote.

So when you think about the importance of something like PROOF,
whether in a court of law, or a mathematics book, or proof in coq or
Isabelle/HOL, then think about this example. What does a proof really
tell you about the truth?

Ian

Re: The Free Logic Foundation

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 09/17/2014 09:29 PM, Ian Grant wrote:
> Here's some more logic that they don't teach kids these days.
> 
> It is now nearly a month since I posted an 8 page text explaining how
> to vastly extend the life-expectancy of the Free Software Foundation.
> 
> In that time I have received a total of three items of evidence (let's
> call them exhibits) which show that there may indeed be some genuinely
> intelligent people reading these lists. Two of these indications were
> messages from the same person, but that's OK.
> 
> Here they are: the exhibits:
> 
>  1  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00015.html
>  2  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00008.html
>  3  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lightning/2014-09/msg00028.html
> 
> What is interesting is that to many, these indications, exhibits 1&2
> on the one hand, and exhibit 3 on the other, are of a remarkably
> different character. One of them agrees with me, and the other does
> not. Yet I claim that they both show clearly that they have read and
> understood everything I wrote.
> 
> Now the question for the people who think they are logicians, or at
> least, those that think they are _rational human beings,_ is this:
> 
> How is it that I can claim these people both understand what I wrote,
> when one of them agrees with me, but the other doesn't?
> 
> And since I am pretty sure that no-one on these lists other than these
> two people will understand this, I am just going to spoil it for
> everyone else and tell you how it is.
> 
> It's because, although Stefan doesn't agree with me, he clearly
> understands what I have said. The reason he doesn't agree is simply
> that his personal experience, by which he judges truth, is different
> from mine. The experience of Taylan on the other hand, concurs with
> mine, and so Taylan and I make the same judgement of the truth of what
> I say.
> 
> No one else who responded to anything I have said on these lists in
> the past month has been able to demonstrate any understanding
> whatsoever of what I wrote.
> 
> So when you think about the importance of something like PROOF,
> whether in a court of law, or a mathematics book, or proof in coq or
> Isabelle/HOL, then think about this example. What does a proof really
> tell you about the truth?
> 
> Ian
> 

Your essays are not related to guile-devel and only a fraction of your
posts have anything to do with Guile itself. Please take it elsewhere.

Thanks.

-- 
Mateusz K.