A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Mihai Popescu B. S.
Hello,

I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real
discussion about RMS and OpenBSD.
From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things and
now I think I should not read those things. In fact someone should put a waring
label like "Read with caution" or "Rude language and affecting text inside".

Normally, I am just a common user of OpenBSD and I know that the project runs
with some ideas and some peopel which I respect and I think they are good for
the purpose of the project. What I will say next should be taken as an user
feedback and nothing more.

A. "License" thing

Once I asked a lawyer why do people need lawyers in court since we have very
clear laws state the rules for us.
The man was in difficulty to answer, but eventually he tried and told me that
the laws are not very clear like I used to think.
Of course, the next question was why don't you make them clear... this way you
know when some did something wrong and you know what the punishment is.
This time the man was in real trouble answering me and he looked at me and
said: "I really don't see what you are trying to find out, but what I've
learned in school is that the law is always questionable. As a lawyer, it is
your job to use it in your client advantage."
Later, I found out that our human language is too weak to define laws in
absolute and clear terms.
Having this said, I have read the BSD licence. Basically I understood that you
can do anything with the code, the only request is to put the copyright text
inside the source code files. ( If what I understood is not right, maybe some
details and examples can be added to the web page.)
The GPL licence I never got with it to some understanding. I thing it is very
confusing and I was lost in many DOs and DON'Ts. I don't know what GPL allows
you and what it doesn't. Basically, I like an example with variations.

Of course you need licences, but don't try to be so absolute on defining them
because you can't. I think the same applies to "free", "open", etc.

B. Including of non-free software

As far as I know, the base of OpenBSD is clear from non-free software. Then we
have the ports collection, the root of RMS frustration. As an OpenBSD user I
saw a clear delimitation between the base of OpenBSD and the rest. I got this
feeling from FAQ: i know that ports are not the goal of the project, they are
not going thru the same audit, you will not have support . I got the collection
almost as a different project.

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html

I sense the ports as a help to manage using what you have. I never felt that
OpenBSD is encouraging the use of non-free or propietary software. It was the
contrary, the FAQ tells you somehow how the things are. But no sign of
encouraging.

C. The language

I know that OpenBSD people are putting much effort and many things into the
project and I think they know better what things should be done. But it is very
hard for me to understand and to accept some of the comments I've read on the
list. I know, maybe nobody will care but I have said this is just a feedback.
Try to look back on your messages and re-read them. Awful. I don't know how
this started, but what came next was just a cheap show. A show that I think it
was very funny and welcome by the opponents of the open source projects. Both
sides started to used stupid and out of context words. Nothing was achieved,
just insults and no productive discussion. I think the pressure of working and
maybe the New Year come generated this but I like to think you all can do more
than this. More good I mean, not more discussions like this.
I you felt that RMS did something not appropiate for the project, you should
have him contacted in private and clear all the confusion.

D. The PR thing

From what I know, OpenBSD is not doing a PR (Public Relation) thing, I mean
there is no such a big activity to make OpenBSD popular like you can see on
other projects. I got the idea that the OS is done for the developers own
purposes, but if you like it you can use it and help in many ways.
If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been "
Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project .... please
check this links ...". I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to
mention the RTFM thing. You say on FAQ that beginners questions will not
receive so much help, that the man is your friend. What the hell? 15 days of
messages just to answer a beginner-like question. That is not fair ! :-)

Bytheway, after some research I'm stuck and I must ask something. But I think I
will do this in a different post.




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

chefren
On 1/6/08 11:37 PM, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:

> If RMS came up with some statements, then the proper answer should have been "
> Dear Mr. RMS, you are not so well informed about OpenBSD project .... please
> check this links ...". I got that as a good answer for my questions. Not to
> mention the RTFM thing. You say on FAQ that beginners questions will not
> receive so much help, that the man is your friend. What the hell? 15 days of
> messages just to answer a beginner-like question. That is not fair ! :-)

Mr Stallman says he cannot browse the web, we respect that and are helping him!

I do think we shouldn't respond to his croonies.

+++chefren

L-9
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

L-9
In reply to this post by Mihai Popescu B. S.
Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:
> Both sides started to used stupid and out of context words. Nothing was achieved,
> just insults and no productive discussion.
Stallman continually keeps repairing and admitting to a small amount of
his errors... and this entire thread has made progress. The only reason
stallman started admitting to anything, was because people were so
persistent and tough on him.

How often I have to beat these quotes below into people I don't know:

/"...a philosopher who did not hurt anybody's feelings was not doing his
job."
--Plato (source: Wikipedia)/

/"...a programmer who did not hurt anybody's feelings was not doing his
job."
--L505 (source: Z505)/

/"..one of the men who brings legal charges against Socrates, Anytus,
warns him about the trouble he may get into if he does not stop
criticizing important people."
--Wikipedia/


Everyone is so nicey nicey huggy huggy with stallman in other communties
and they never speak up about any of his philosophies because they
believe everything he says blindly. Linus once in a while speaks up
about Stallman and everyone gets mad at Linus. Do you see a pattern
here? There is nothing wrong with speaking up once in a while. I'm
growing a hatred toward people who are scared of speaking up.. they have
no guts and they try and STOP ME from speaking up.  They are speaking up
themselves, about me speaking up. Hypocrisy?

The fact that Stallman himself is replying,  shows that he wants to be
here. If it was so bad for him, he would have left. He is learning
something about freedom.. but he won't admit to it. I have personally
taught the man more than anyone else here, as we all know.

As for the language? Why can't people just get a sense of humor? Stop
being so sensitive about such things.  This is email and laughing is
healthy. Foul language is not always nice, but at times it is extremely
hilarious.. and anyone who whines about being hurt from foul language
should really learn to cope with it.. because humans by nature should
not be perfectly nice all the time. If we were all nice we'd all believe
in the tooth fairy.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

tsao-2
In reply to this post by Mihai Popescu B. S.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:37:26PM -0800, Mihai Popescu B. S. wrote:
> I came to the misc@ list from Journal links just to see what is the real
> discussion about RMS and OpenBSD.
> >From the start I have to tell the list that I'm sad. I have read sad things and
> now I think I should not read those things. In fact someone should put a waring
> label like "Read with caution" or "Rude language and affecting text inside".
[...]

+1

I'm a Debian GNU/Linux and OpenBSD user. I'm a FSF member and I buy
OpenBSD stuff to support the project, and I try to help Debian, GNU,
Linux and OpenBSD projects as far my capabilities allow me.

And I don't understand how important people that I admire can fall down
in so childish discussion. I'm ashamed as free software supporter and I
feel insulted by members of two communities. In the beginning I think
clearly who was right and who wasn't, but now it is not important.

So now you can continue flaming yourselves and flame me too everybody.
Maybe I'm too old to still believe in peace.

--
Francisco J. Tsao Santmn
http://tsao.enelparaiso.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Matthew Szudzik
In reply to this post by Mihai Popescu B. S.
> Later, I found out that our human language is too weak to define laws in
> absolute and clear terms.

Not true.  Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics
in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.

Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our
legal system is a giant complicated mess for the same reason that
Microsoft Windows is a giant complicated mess: a cleanly-organized
system was simply not a priority for its creators.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Eliah Kagan
On Jan 6, 2008 9:38 PM, Matthew Szudzik wrote:
> Not true.  Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics
> in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.

Many if not most physicists and mathematicians would dispute that
statement. There are numerous important debates in the fields of
physics and mathematics about what fundamental rules mean and how they
may and may not be used. (There are also multiple useful,
mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)

In math, physics, or software licensing, one must ask whether problems
of clarity are the result of the language and how it is used, or the
result of people not knowing quite what they mean when they use the
language. Imprecise language is valuable when one wants to communicate
imprecise ideas.

> Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our
> legal system is a giant complicated mess for the same reason that
> Microsoft Windows is a giant complicated mess: a cleanly-organized
> system was simply not a priority for its creators.

A cleanly-organized legal system would operate efficiently and
consequently be extremely powerful. Horrible atrocities would result.
The US legal system was designed for the express purpose of limiting
its own efficiency. I doubt the creators of Microsoft Windows made a
bad operating system to empower the people who would be most directly
affected by it. While not everything about Microsoft is bad, I
wouldn't give them so much credit as to compare their products to a
poorly functioning government.

-Eliah

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
In reply to this post by Matthew Szudzik
Matthew Szudzik wrote:
>
> Not true.  Language can define the laws of of physics or of
> mathematics
> in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.
>
First the obvious: If it can, then why doesn't it?

Second, seems like mathematics has "axioms" not "laws".

There are a few things you can define with pretty good rigor,
not all that easy to do a lot with 'em though.
That glib a statement is only made by people who have no
concept of clear or of precise or of absolute.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Duncan Patton a Campbell
In reply to this post by Eliah Kagan
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
"Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (There are also multiple useful,
> mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)

Provably so?

Dhu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > (There are also multiple useful,
> > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
>
> Provably so?
>
Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Reid Nichol
In reply to this post by Duncan Patton a Campbell
--- Duncan Patton a Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > (There are also multiple useful,
> > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
>
> Provably so?

+1

I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent.  Quite frankly, I'd be
surprised if this is true.



best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Reid Nichol
In reply to this post by Tony Aberenthy
--- Tony Abernethy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> > "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > (There are also multiple useful,
> > > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
> >
> > Provably so?
> >
> Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.
>
>

Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results
when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g).  Any
specific references?  Or something else that would yield results.

best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Duncan Patton a Campbell
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Reid Nichol <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> --- Tony Abernethy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> > > "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (There are also multiple useful,
> > > > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
> > >
> > > Provably so?
> > >
> > Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.
> >
> >
>
> Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results
> when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g).  Any
> specific references?  Or something else that would yield results.
>


ono-Euclidian appears to reference something by Omar Kayam, an 11th c
Iranian _POET_.  If we are to allow the arg. that Creationism is science,
we might allow that such an "inconsistency" has meaning.  

Dhu


> best regards,
> Reid Nichol
>
> President Bush says:
>
> War Is Peace
> Freedom Is Slavery
> Ignorance Is Strength
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Eliah Kagan
In reply to this post by Reid Nichol
I said:
> (There are also multiple useful,
> mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)

Duncan Patton a Campbell said:
> Provably so?

Reid Nichol said:
> I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent.  Quite frankly, I'd be
> surprised if this is true.

Tony Abernethy's example of non-Euclidean geometries being
inconsistent with Euclidean geometry is a good one.

The statement "Mathematics is consistent," is not false. It is
meaningless. At least if you try to consider it mathematically. It is
sort of like saying, "the public library is consistent." In
mathematics, there are mathematical systems. Mathematical systems have
axioms. Axioms are statements that, within a particular system, are
accepted without proof. Using a mathematical system doesn't mean you
believe the axioms--it just means that you are willing to see what
happens when you suppose that they are true.

A set of statements is consistent if the conjunction of all the
statements in the set is not a contradiction. (Also, the empty set is
consistent.) Otherwise the set is inconsistent. A mathematical system
is itself consistent if the set containing all and only axioms of that
system is consistent. Otherwise the system is inconsistent. Two or
more mathematical systems are mutually consistent if the union of
their sets of axioms is consistent, and mutually inconsistent
otherwise.

Statements A and B are dependent if and only if either provably
follows from the other. Otherwise they are independent.

The axioms of Euclidean Geometry are provably consistent. The Parallel
Postulate, which states that parallel lines intersect nowhere, is
provably independent of the other axioms of Euclidean Geometry. Adding
in the Parallel Postulate gives you a geometry describing a flat
space. Adding in its negation or statements stronger than its negation
(i.e. statements from which its negation follows, but which do not
follow from its negation) give you geometries describing other spaces.
Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries (such as those in which
the parallel postulate does not hold) are used by mathematicians.

A similar situation exists where ZFC (accepting the Axiom of Choice)
and ZF-C (accepting the negation of the Axiom of Choice) systems are
mutually inconsistent extensions of ZF (Zermelo-Frankel) set theory.
Both ZFC and ZF-C are used by mathematicians.

Separate from the matter of inconsistent systems, there are also
fundamental questions in mathematics about how precise or absolute our
math really is. What I have just done is to sketch a proof. It is a
proof about mathematical systems. To do this proof formally, I need a
formal metasystem that handles mathematical systems as mathematical
objects. How do I then justify my metasystem? To justify a claim
formally, I prove it. How do I justify that I have proved it?
Ultimately all formal reasoning rests on informal reasoning.

In physics, the obvious example is that General Relativity is
inconsistent with quantum mechanics (or if you don't think QM is a
system, then with any system based on QM, e.g. QED, QCD). The hope is
that a unified field theory can be formulated that makes accurate
predictions about gravitation at high energies at the quantum level.
To speak fast and loose, this would represent a rewriting of General
Relativity to make it consistent with what we know about quantum
mechanics, in the same sense that Newtonian physics has to be
rewritten to turn it into quantum mechanics. And yet, General
Relativity is still hugely useful. Not only does it predict cosmic
observations with great accuracy, but your GPS wouldn't work without
it (the Earth's gravitational field has an effect on the spacing of
signal pulses, and that effect has to be accounted for).

In informal language on this list, Richard Stallman has certain ideas
about what "contains" and "recommends" mean. Theo de Raadt and most
other list contributors have a different idea. Defining these terms in
different ways, these people come to different results. The results
are inconsistent because the definitions are inconsistent. In the way
I'd use the words, I don't think OpenBSD contains or recommends any
non-free software. I say this because, for Stallman's notion of
recommending by reference to make sense, a compilation must at least
recommend whatever it contains (e.g. OpenBSD recommends its kernel).
But I don't think that presenting non-free software as an option to
users constitutes recommendation. Since this is the only way that
anyone (e.g. Stallman) has suggested that OpenBSD recommends non-free
software, I don't think there is any real recommendation. If this is
true then by the contrapositive law OpenBSD doesn't contain non-free
software either. That is *not* a proof--just an outline of my
thinking.

See, it makes sense to me that one might think that presenting
non-free software as an option constitutes recommendation. As a
somewhat parallel case, I don't think that presenting contraception as
an option in sex education classes constitutes recommendation, but I
can see why some people do. Since I don't think there's anything wrong
with recommending contraception, I don't really care whether or not it
does, and so if someone who thinks that contraception is morally wrong
tells me that I am doing something wrong by advocating presenting it
as an option in sex education classes, then I will disagree with their
belief that I am recommending contraception and also with their belief
that doing so would be wrong.

My understanding is that Stallman believes that any use of non-free
software outside specific circumstances where one is developing free
software replacements is morally wrong. So he thinks that to indicate
to people who might be tempted to engage in this wrong that it is
possible and tell them how to do it is also wrong. Consequently he
decides not to endorse a project that he believes does that. Stripped
of the original dispute about the use of language, this makes
sense...though I'd point out that the connection between his potential
endorsement and someone actually using non-free software is pretty
indirect.

I do not believe that the last paragraph is a straw man argument. If I
got Richard Stallman's position wrong, it is because, not being him,
anything I say about his position is subject to possible mistakes.

I am CC'ing this to RMS because I have actually said something
relevant to the discussion he started, and so that he may, if he
wishes, correct anything that I have incorrectly attributed to him.

-Eliah

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
In reply to this post by Duncan Patton a Campbell
oops: NON-Euclidean
(still more accurate than a lot of ... on this thread)

Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:

>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST)
> Reid Nichol <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Tony Abernethy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> > > > "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > (There are also multiple useful,
> > > > > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
> > > >
> > > > Provably so?
> > > >
> > > Euclidean and ono-Euclidian geometries should suffice.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Google (including scholar.g) gave nothing of value (I see 4 results
> > when I search for ono-Euclidean on g and nothing on scholar.g).  Any
> > specific references?  Or something else that would yield results.
> >
>
>
> ono-Euclidian appears to reference something by Omar Kayam, an 11th c
> Iranian _POET_.  If we are to allow the arg. that Creationism
> is science,
> we might allow that such an "inconsistency" has meaning.  
>
> Dhu
>
>
> > best regards,
> > Reid Nichol
> >
> > President Bush says:
> >
> > War Is Peace
> > Freedom Is Slavery
> > Ignorance Is Strength
> >
> >
> >      
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
In reply to this post by Reid Nichol
Reid Nichol wrote:

> --- Duncan Patton a Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> > "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > (There are also multiple useful,
> > > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
> >
> > Provably so?
>
> +1
>
> I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent.  Quite frankly, I'd be
> surprised if this is true.
>
System A being inconsistent with System B
(that's what the "mutually-inconsistent formal systems" means)

System RMS being self-inconsistent
(that's this thread)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

William Boshuck
In reply to this post by Duncan Patton a Campbell
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:37:46AM -0600, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
> "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > (There are also multiple useful,
> > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
>
> Provably so?

  Yes.  For example, in intuitionistic analysis every real-valued
function of a real-valued variable is continuous, whereas
classically most of them (e.g., in the sense of cardinality) are
not. (To anticipate (the substance of) a remark: Yes, e.g., there
is no Heaviside function in intuitionistic analysis and no, that
does not prevent intuitionistic analysis from being able to do
the work in applications that the Heaviside function does for
classical analysis (just somewhat differently).)
  The full picture is more complicated, however.  There are
translations between the formal systems (or perhaps of one into
an expansion by imaginaries, higher types and/or modal operators
of (possibly a reduct of) the other).  Semantically, this often
corresponds to a construction in one formal system of a structure
that faithfully (perhaps only relative to certain formulae) models
the other formal system.
   Examples: classically one can verify the foregoing result of
intuitionistic analysis, e.g., by interpreting it in a gros topos
of subcanonical sheaves on a category of spaces (an extension[1]
of Cohen's method of forcing for constructing models of set theory);
Klein's model of the hyperbolic plane and the (essentially)
Grassmann construction of projective space, each of which is a
construction on (part of) an euclidean space.

Observe that this does not contradict Matthew's original remark;
if anything, it reveals some of the depth of that remark.
Matthew knows what he is talking about.

[1] This word conceals a lengthy description of an involved
relationship; I am sure that some would dispute its aptness.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Eliah Kagan
You have done a pretty good job of summarizing my position.
The sex education analogy is quite clear and valid.
(I'm in favor of teaching people how to use contraception,
because I'm in favor of encouraging sex.)
Thank you for helping to explain.

In this discussion I have stuck to correcting misstatements about my
views, and refuting criticism.  I have defended and explained my
ethical views in response to attacks, and only for that reason.
If others let that question drop, so will I.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Completeness & consistency, was: A sad thread

Ingo Schwarze
In reply to this post by Reid Nichol
Reid Nichol wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:02:19AM -0800:

> Duncan Patton a Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> (There are also multiple useful,
>>> mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
>>
>> Provably so?
>
> I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent.
> Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true.

Eliah has beautifully demonstrated this for both Mathematics
and Physics.  What is flabbergasting me about such questions
is that these are extremely old facts - essentially, known for
more than 70 years - and many people still believe that formal
science can be both complete and consistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki
 - nicely narrating how the attempt to transform mathematics
   into a single unified and consistent theory miserable failed

http://wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem
 - explaining why

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del  (1906-1978)
 - "One of the most significant logicians of all time, GC6el's work
    has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking
    in the 20th century, a time when many, such as Bertrand Russell,
    A. N. Whitehead and David Hilbert, were attempting to use logic
    and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics."

Still, many people appearantly never heard of the problems he
described, even though we are now well into the 3rd millenium...

Reply-To: poster   set, we are *terribly* off-topic.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Jona Joachim-7
In reply to this post by Reid Nichol
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:02:19 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:

> --- Duncan Patton a Campbell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
>> "Eliah Kagan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > (There are also multiple useful,
>> > mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.)
>>
>> Provably so?
>
> +1
>
> I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent.  Quite frankly, I'd be
> surprised if this is true.

The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.

Oh and by the way this sentence is also false.


Best regards,
Jona

--
"I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists
build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns
laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you
are free." Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord & Confusion"

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A sad thread - RMS vs. OpenBSD

Duncan Patton a Campbell
In reply to this post by William Boshuck
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:08 -0500
William Boshuck <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   Yes.  For example, in intuitionistic analysis every real-valued

?intuitionistic?

Dhu

12