RichardKennaway comments on A simple counterexample to deBlanc 2007? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: PhilGoetz 30 May 2011 05:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 31 May 2011 08:21:59AM *  0 points [-]

As I have not specified I, you need to show that my choice of S_I is inconsistent with any possible set I in order to make the argument you're trying to make.

In the original paper, S_I is determined by I. There is no I for which your set S_I is the set defined in the paper. It really is as simple as that.