From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:17:57 GMT

I have read this thread so far with a bit of surprise - It never occured
to me that my short remark would trigger such a flood of hair-splitting.
I'll try to explain what I meant and will try to comment a few of the
following statements. 

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

>In <1992Sep29.180844.4739@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep29.030113.15991@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.180214.3087@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>But os/2 is a totally different story.  Once you install it, you
>>>>>>>use it.  That's that simple.  Better dos than dos and better windows
>>>>>>>than windows.  Is there in this logic, if it is a logic, not a fact,
>>>>>>>at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, I know at least two people, who have OS/2 2 installed on
>>>>>>their machine, but almost never use it. Both have copies bought
>>>>>>via store/mail order, not free or beta copies, or upgrades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And I know at least one person who has bought the NT pre-beta CD-ROM and
>>>>>does never use it. So what? 
>>>>
>>>>     Read the original quote.  Wolfgang has proven Min's statement
>>>>false by counterexample.  The usage statistics on the Windows NT
>>>>PDK are irrelevant in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Phil, please, try to make some sense.  How can anyone prove an example
>>>false by a counterexample?  An example is an example.  It can perhaps
>>>be falsified by proving that the example was just made up.  But an 
>>>example cannot be proven false by another example.  Understand?

>>     You didn't use an example - you made a statement.  "OS/2 is a
>>totally different story.  Once you install it, you use it."  Your
>>statement has been proven false by counterexample.  Why are you
>>having a hard time understanding that?

>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."

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."

Without knowing which of these interpretations was right,
I thought to kill two birds with one stone, by refuting
that statement with a single counter example which covers
most possible interpretations.

The technical interpretation is simple to disprove by
providing an example, like the Wrights disproved that 
an aeroplane was impossible, buy building one.

The statistical one is a bit harder to refute, be-
cause almost everybody reads it as "... ALMOST nobody
ever uses it to run DOS ...", which is a quantitative,
not a qualitative statement.

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.

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.

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

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.)

   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.

   (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.)


[...FUD deleted ...]

>>>Now, back to the example business.  The reason why I didn't respond to
>>>Wolfgang's post was simply because I thought his post was not worth
>>>comment or counter-argument.  You can't win an argument by way of
>>>just saying I know such and such case. 

>>     You can win an argument by presenting counter-evidence to
>>contradict a claim.  Wolfgang's evidence was anecdotal, but still
>>quite believable.  Are you seriously suggesting that he was lying?

>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.

>>     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. 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.

>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.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>