Re: Reasons (not) to vote Motion 27: NO
John Pryce wrote:
That's what the FTDIA is! Merely a justification that the method
(decorations in this case) gives valid results.
John, be careful. Your theorem in its present form has contradictions, so it
can't be valid. The contradictions were pointed out by Vincent Lefevre, and
you aknowledged them. But neither you nor Arnold ever addressed this.
Also, you have no coherent theory for intersection and union. Saying there
should be no standard for these operations is less than a mathematical punt:
it is simply not acceptable.
But you write in 2.2 "We do NOT need a version of the FTIA concerning
decorations". What would you? When the Interested Person says "Convince
me!" are you just going to say "Umm, well it seems to work"??
The propagation of decorations from the leafs of the DET to the root is a
proof by structural induction. After all this time, do you seriously still
not understand that? Tupper already knew this many years ago...
P1788 appears to be at a crossroads. John, we've been having this argument
for almost a whole year now, but I am NOT convinced.
As I've noted before, I'm along for the ride to the end, for better or
worse. My continued participation in P1788 is not contingent on any
particular motion passing. However, I am pretty skeptical at this point
P1788 will succeed unless it passes Motion 27-A1.
Nate