RichardKennaway comments on A simple counterexample to deBlanc 2007? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
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.