From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:52:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Oct8.165231.13973
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <strobl.718060677@gmd.de> strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:

>In <1992Sep30.210022.2904@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Actually no, Phil, the example given DOESN'T disprove the statement.
>>Note that the example give states that they "ALMOST never use it"
>>[emphasis mine], not that they NEVER use it.  Hence it was installed
>>and they do use it.  The only way the statement can be false is if the
>>person who installs it simply doesn't use the entire machine or else
>>is sufficiently clueless to ENJOY wasting large amounts of diskspace
>>for something they never use.  Note that it says INSTALLED ON THEIR
>>MACHINE, not merely purchased.

>Well, I immediately understood that the sentence "OS/2 is a
>totally different story. Once you install it, you use it"
>could mean two completely different things.

>First interpretation (the "technical" one): 

>    "It is technically impossible to have an installed copy
>    of OS/2 on a machine, without using it every time the
>    machine is switched on. This is because the machine
>    boots into OS/2, and if the people use DOS or Windows
>    afterwards, they still use the underlying OS/2 system."

Why do you use the phrase 'every time' above?  It does not seem to me
to be a requirement of the initial statement, which was that if OS/2
is installed on their machine that they use it -- note that there is
NO provision of "and only it" or "to the exclusion of all else".

>Second interpretation (the "statistical" one):

>    "OS/2 support of DOS and WIndows is so good, that, although
>    switching between OS/2 and DOS is possible through the
>    multiple boot feature, nobody ever uses it to run
>    DOS on their machine, after the initial installation."

Again, why this interpretation?  Nobody said they had to SOLELY use
OS/2 if it was installed; just that if it was installed they used it
some part of the time (or they wouldn't have bothered to leave it
installed and using up diskspace).

>Please note: what was said was a definite statement:
>"there doesn't exist a single machine which meets
>the following two conditions a) it has OS/2 installed on
>it and b) the installed OS/2 isn't used, at the same
>time", a statistical observation in disguise.

No, that isn't what was said.  What was said is that there doesn't
exist a single machine which meets the following two conditions: a) it
has OS/2 installed on it, and b) OS/2 is never used on that machine.

>The statement is easy to prove wrong by counterexample,
>by showing an example of a machine with an installed
>OS/2, which isn't used, while another operations system
>*is* used on that machine, at the same time.

Given your restatement of the original, you have proven it wrong.
However, that isn't what the original seemed to be saying.

>I did that, by telling that I've seen it.

Except you didn't disprove the original statement, because you said
"ALMOST never", which implies that they DO use it, even if only
ocassionally. 

>Now, I've understood that

> - you don't have to believe me. 

>   (Do you really want to argue about that? That I can't 
>   provide two or more people who have OS/2, but don't
>   use it? You certainly are kidding, aren't you?
>   Ask somebody in your neighborhood, you will certainly
>   find one.)

You disproved your restatement, but your restatement is not the same
as the original statement.  Hence, it doesn't matter whether I believe
you or not; your statement simply does not disprove the original
statement. 

>   Btw, I didn't make it up, believe me.

> - you can refute it as statistically insignificant.

>   (Sure it is. But don't disguise a statistical
>   argument as a technical one, then)

> - you can change the definitions, for example by
>   redefining "using" as "installed", i.e. by proving
>   a false statement by replacing it by a trivial
>   tautology.

This is what you seem to have done, by redefining "they use it" to
mean "they use ONLY it".

>   (not that ingenious, imho).

> - or you can start to confuse the topic, for example
>   by claiming that the opposite of always is never,
>   or by proving something using the assumption that
>   wasting disk space is impossible (an interesting
>   evidence, btw.)

Unlikely in the extreme that someone who NEVER uses OS/2 would leave
it installed.  Do you really have that much disk space to waste?


>[...FUD deleted ...]

>>Well, I'm seriously suggesting that it doesn't constitute the
>>counter-proof of the original statement that you say it does, so
>>there's no need to suggest he was lying.

>Well, thank you.

>But let me ask you one question. What would represent a valid
>counter-example, in your opinion? Statements which can't be
>proven to be false serve no purpose here, imho.

A valid counter-example would be someone who leaves OS/2 installed on
his machine and NEVER uses it; not "almost never", but NEVER.

>>>     Wolfgang never made the claim that every copy of Windows sold
>>>was being used.  You, however, did make a similar claim about OS/2.
>>>He proved your statement false, but made no counterclaim.  Therefore,
>>>he has made no statement that you could prove wrong.

>>Not in what I read, he didn't (although it was probalby his intent).

>My intent was to provide a counter-example, no more, no less.

>>The quote that it is claimed that Wolfgang refuted is that people use
>>OS/2 AFTER IT IS INSTALLED ON THEIR MACHINES.  

>The statement was that ALL people use OS/2 after it is installed on
>their machines, all the time. 

That is not the statement that I saw; it is not the statement that was
quoted; if that was said then it is obviously wrong, else they
wouldn't provide things like dual-boot and there would be no people
who had packages that would not run under OS/2.

>To prove that to be wrong, one doesn't
>have to show that nobody uses OS/2 after it is installed on their 
>machines, ever. It is sufficient, for example, to show, that
>there *exist* people who don't use OS/2 after it is installed on
>their machines, sometimes. That's elementary predicate calculus.

Except you've redefined the problem statement from what I saw being
discussed. 

>>This is sort of
>>tautological, since once you install the operating system on a
>>machine, you either use it or you don't use the machine.  

>Yes, its tautological.

>>Of course,
>>there are things like 'dual boot' and such,  but this seems like a lot
>>of trouble to go to in order to NOT use an operating system.

>You sound as if you haven't seen or used it, ever.

Then you need to learn to listen more carefully.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy