Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> writes: > On 24/12/2016 03:52, lee wrote: >> Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:15:50 +0100, lee wrote: >>> >>>>> There are no config files to edit with the predictable names, the >>>>> names are created from the physical location of the port. That's why >>>>> they are called predictable, >>>> >>>> I only know what the names are when I can look them up when the computer >>>> is running. I don't call that "predictable". >>> >>> If they are constructed according to specific rules, they are >>> predictable, by definition. >> >> You're overlooking that you need to know exactly, in advance, what the >> rules are applied to, and all the rules, for having a chance that your >> prediction turns out to be correct. Provided you know all that, you can >> predict the universe, assuming that everything always goes according to >> rules. You can not prove that it does and only disprove that it does >> when you find a case in which it doesn't. So what's your definition and >> your predictions worth? > > You keep mis-defining what "predictable" means in this context. It does > not mean, in the style of Newton, that you will always know everything > about it. Neither is it the same meaning as prediction in the context of > a scientific theory. > > "prediction" here simply means that the interface name is guaranteed to > be the same as it was on last boot, and the somewhat random nature of > kernael names (ethX, wlanX) is not in play. > > It does NOT mean that you are guaranteed to know exactly what an > interface will be called before you boot it for the first time. > > Rename "predictable names" to "already known names" if it makes you feel > better. There's nothing wrong with this definition of predictable, as it > satisfies it's own rules and is consistent within itself. It is not > complete though but we already know that from Godel. > > As long as you keep trying to apply the wrong meaning of predictable to > this situation, you will keep typing mails like this one I'm replying to > where you argue about something that is not even there. You also can't > realistically argue about what "predictable" means because like almost > all human concepts it is not a singularity, rather it is a spectrum > where it means what the author says it means. > > And the quote for that meaning has already been posted in this thread > somewhere.
Seriously? Predicting something means to tell something in advance. You are trying to defend a wrong usage of language here.
