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...
[ message continues ]

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.

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

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.

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
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

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:21:14 -0500
Provably so?
Dhu

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.

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:08 -0500
?intuitionistic?
Dhu

+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

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.

Setting the record straight because I can't in good conscience have

such nonsense sitting in public not refuted.
You haven't pointed to an instance of an inconsistency in Mathematics.

Which, I'll point out, was what I explicitly asked for.
Basically, you're referencing a choice in Mathematics that we have,

that we can go for either consistent OR complete.  And you seem to be

saying that Mathematics is neither?  You don't seem to understand the

issues involved and/or have incomplete knowledge/understanding of the

history of Mathematics.
"What is flabbergasting me" is that you haven't a clue and/or lack the

attention to detail to answer questions that were explicitly asked.
Point of fact, Mathematics has been proven to have the option to be

either consistent OR complete.  From what I've learned, we've chosen to

be consistent.  Which, IMO, was a very very wise decision.  If you

don't agree, point to a specific instance of an inconsistency in modern

Mathematics.
Eliah Kagan wrote:

"""

Tony Abernethy's example of non-Euclidean geometries being

inconsistent with Euclidean geometry is a good one.

"""
This is so very wrong it isn't even funny.  You deserve to be ridiculed

publicly into oblivion for making such nonsensical statements.
I mean seriously, Euclidean geometry assumes a perfectly flat plain

whereas non-Eucliden geometry does not.  Do you think they'll go in

different directions?  Do you think that it is even remotely reasonable

to compare the conclusions after such a divergence without considering

limiting cases?
Though a couple of the statements you make after the above statement

are reasonable, you take it in a direction and make conclusions that

aren't (meaningless?!?!?).  This mixture of reasonable with

unreasonable, including such logic makes such statements erroneously

compelling, which is very dangerous for those learning this stuff for

the first time.  Please stay away from making any statements on the

foundations of Mathematics in the future as you s...
[ message continues ]

Axioms:

Empty set -- this is consistent.

	There is nothing there to be inconsistent.
Foo and NOT-Foo	-- this is complete

	From these two little axioms all true statements can be derived.

		(and all the false ones too)
So what?

Going from those trivial cases to the whole of 19th century math is more

than fits into one mind.

This is now the 21st century.

I would be little bit more careful about dragging the incompletness

theorem into the  discussion  without  properly understanding

the statement of the theorem, its meaning, and corollaries.

The connections that you are trying to make between the incompletness

theorem and Burbaki project are very shallow at best and I certainly

have not heard them before.
Kind Regards,
Predrag
Department of Mathematics

University of Arizona
P. S. I am no expert on mathematical logic but  definitely know little

bit better than your average bystander.

For the record, I do not believe that there is necessarily no complete

and entirely correct *physical* theory "out there" to be discovered.

Such a theory, when formalized mathematically, would have to allow

well-formed undecidable statements. But those statements would not

necessarily be *about* physical reality, any more than an applied

system that modestly extends Zermelo-Frankel set theory (with or

without the Axiom of Choice) to contain axioms about voter

demographics is incomplete with respect to classification of voters

due to the undecidability of the Continuum Hypothesis. In other words,

the "complete physics" would actually use only part of the

mathematical framework used to formalize it.
It's also possible that a complete and correct theory of physics will

be discovered and be accepted, and still not be formalized

mathematically. Quantum Electrodynamics is probably the most

successful scientific theory ever (in terms of the number,

consistency, and precision of its predictions), and yet as far as I

know it has still not been formalized in the mathematical sense.
-Eliah

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:09:47 -0500
Is it not the case that you can show that you cannot prove a system

both complete and consistent?  ---> doesn't mean there is no "God"

just that you cannot prove it.
Dhu

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)

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 ...
[ message continues ]

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.

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

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 00:26:35 -0800 (PST)
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.

oops: NON-Euclidean

(still more accurate than a lot of ... on this thread)

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.

[...]
+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

Maybe because those people are not so thoughtful and thus important as
It is very important to make clear that some "interesting" statements

are just lies.
All freedom-claims of Richard Stallman are dubious and is main point

in life, the DRM part he added to BSD to make it GPL is enslaving
Mr Stallman is not peaceful at all he tries to enslave programmers for

no reason and he lies to his followers.
That's very sad.
+++chefren