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.
