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.
