Klarinet Archive - Posting 000259.txt from 2009/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Fair Use
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:14:06 -0500

At 9:49 PM -0600 2/11/09, Michael Nichols wrote:
>The first problem is that there is no way to prove A. You can prove
>"not A" by finding a case, but just because you haven't found a case
>doesn't mean there isn't one. But if you do find a case (so "not A"
>is true), then who cares whether A implies B, because it's premise
>about a universe that doesn't exist.

Yes, and we can discuss forever how many angels dance on the head of
a pin too. Practically speaking, I'm sure if there was a case, one of
the copyright facists on the list here would have mentioned it by now.

>The problem is that, assuming that you could prove A, your statement A
>-> B is valid if and only if B is also true. That's because
>
>A -> B
>
>is equivalent to
>
>(not A) or B [you can look this up in any introductory book on
>symbolic logic if you don't believe me]

[SNIPPED because it is all a carbon copy repetition of things I
already posted in previous messages!!!!!!]

Yes, if you would read my posts before responding to them, you would
see that I already stated all this!

At 8:32 PM -0500 2/11/09, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
>This means, "If A is true then B is true." This is logically
>equivalent to saying either A is not true or B is true.
>
>If this statement is FALSE then A must be true and B must be false.

>That means that A -> B is useless to you as a premise for arguing that
>B is true, because if A is true, you have to prove B is true just to
>establish that A -> B is even valid as a premise.

A->B is not a premise. It is a statement. For the umpteenth time.
Read before you respond!

Definite of PREMISE:
A proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
A basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.

"A" could be considered a PREMISE if we assume that it is true, which
I do. "A" in your words is "X has never been adjudicated a copyright
violation".

A->B is NOT a premise. It is a statement. A->B is not a premise. It
is a statment. A->B is NOT a premise. It is a statement.

>Incidentally, just because you can't prove something is false, that
>doesn't make it true. Truth and provability are not one and the same.
> Ever heard of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem?

Yes, and as usual, it is yet another complete irrelevancy. Goedel's
Theorem says that no set of axioms can be both complete and
consistent. IRRELEVANT!!!

I'll simplify my statement further for you, so we can calculate the
number of angels on the pin more accurately...

If X has never (to the best of anyone's knowledge that is currently
active in this discussion on this list) been adjudicated as a
violation of the law, then X is very likely NOT illegal.

So to prove this wrong you would have to show me some X for which
nobody currently active in this discussion knows a case, and yet X is
illegal.

But wait....to determine if X is illegal, it has to be adjudicated.
Hmmm. Then there must be a case somewhere. Hmmmm. Can't find one.
Hmmmm.

Gee whiz....

Logic. Sorry. I know it's taxing on the mind.

--
Jonathan Cohler
Artistic & General Director
International Woodwind Festival
http://iwwf.org/
cohler@-----.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------