From: strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl)
Subject: Re: Good news for 2.0 and other Tidbits.
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:36:54 GMT

In <1992Oct8.165231.13973@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>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".

This is not relevant. The question isn't whether other components
besides OS/2 are used, as long as OS/2 is used, but whether 
OS/2 is used at all, every time a machine with an installed OS/2
is used. 

I use the phrase 'every time' in order to try a more precise
interpretation of the statement I am refering to, just
one would try to explain the meaning of "2+2=4" by 
"if you add two and two, the result is four, every time 
you do it. The result doesn't depend on *why" you add,
when you add, and how you do it".

>>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).

Well, I seem to have missed the "some part of the time", but
understood that it meant a different thing: that they use
it *all* the time.

Seriously, do you really believe that somebody would 
post a statement like "Hey, world, I've made a
new, never before told discovery: once you install some 
software, it happens that you probably may use it, perhaps,
some part of the time"? You surely are kidding, aren't you?

No. Obviously, he meant: for reasons left as an exercise 
to the readers, installation implies use.

>>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.

See above. This is a very weak statement, and I don't believe
that somebody would bother the net by publishing such a
triviality. And, in fact, he didn't.

>>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.

Well, so my anecdotical remark served its purpose to clarify
the meaning of that vague statement.

>>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. 

It wasn't my only intention to disprove the original statement.

>>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. 

The problem with the original statement is that it is vague,
and open for interpretation. Any interpretation isn't the
same as the original statement. I tried to make that clear 
by giving two possible interpretations, and treat them
separately.

>>   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".

Well, I didn't. I understood "they use it" as "they use it as the
operating system on the machine in question". There are a lot of
other things in use, no doubt, but they don't matter. 

>>   (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?

Yes, I do. Satisfied? :)

>>[...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.

How can you be sure that you will never use it, if it is still
installed?  But is this a quality specifiy to OS/2?

You can turn it as you like, the statement in question
is either trivial or wrong.

>>>>     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.

You got it. Hurray!

>>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. 

See above. This is going to become repetetive.

>>>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.

Ok, I listen. Why is dual boot "a lot of trouble to go in order to NOT
use an operating system"? I understand it as a technical method enabling
the user NOT to use an operation system, without uninstalling it,
*without* a lot of trouble. Your description of "'dual boot' and such"
doesn't fit my own experience, and I'm using them all the time.

Wolfgang Strobl
#include <std.disclaimer.hpp>