On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
Jason Holt wrote:
t is for true, which does very little
But at least it does it successfully, which is more than we can
say for false.
The man page for "false" presents an interesting logic puzzle. The
intent of the false command is to "do nothing, unsuccessfully",
which I understand in natural language, but it must be a mess to a
logician. There is no success nor failure if nothing happens. If I
don't play a game, and instead do nothing, I have neither won nor
lost that game. So nothing can fit that interpretation of "do
nothing, unsuccessfully", regardless of what the documentation
might claim.
That must be the wrong interpretation. Perhaps it means the false
command should be unsuccessful in its attempt to do nothing. But
if I am unsuccessful in my attempt to do nothing, apparently I must
have done something. Like when I want to go to sleep, I try to
think about nothing, but then I end up thinking about thinking
about nothing, which is something. I can only truly be successful
at doing nothing if I cease to exist. Even the rock that stubbed
my toe did something, as did the space debris that reflected
light. So apparently, everyone and everything fits the description
"does nothing, unsuccessfully".
Since that interpretation allows the false command to exist, I can
argue that it is correct. However, everyone and everything also
fits, so perhaps false is a synonym for everyone and everything.
Everyone and everything includes this argument, so this argument
matches the description for false. This argument disproves itself.
Ok, third interpretation: the word "nothing" is not intended
literally.
When it says "do nothing", it really means "do as little as
possible". While this is probably the best match for the natural
language interpretation, it's an abomination in logic. If I argue
that "nothing" and "something" are interchangeable, it becomes
impossible to prove or disprove anything, since so many proofs
require nonexistent things to stay nonexistent. Now if I say
nothing travels faster than the speed of light, I'm really saying
that something does. If nothing dies before it is born, then
something actually does. If nothing disproves this interpretation,
then something does. Yet another self-disproving argument.
So the false command has no stable foundation. It must be
deprecated. Start the petition! Also, memorize its description
because it could be a great defense against killer robots.
Inconthievable!!
-Blake
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
