From: jacob@fy.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.lp
Subject: Re: * PEACE PLEASE! *
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:21:49 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Physics Departement, Gothenburg

I snort at your pseudoscientific proof of the existance of SW. By your
logic, I can prove that you don't exist:

1) People can't have egos larger than the size of Texas.

2) You have to belong to the category 'people' to write in the usenet.

3) You have an ego larger than the size  of Texas, the Amazonas and
   the municipal council of Timbukto put together.

From lemmas 1-3, it follows that you can't possibly exist.

In article <mmcg.715150785@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> mmcg@cs.monash.edu.au (Mike  Mc Gaughey) writes:
>
>A simple existence proof for Shattered World:
>
>1) TMI claims CD is not the best mud around, because TMI has done some
>   things better.  This is clearly correct, as TMI has some rather
>   talented people, a few of whom actually know what they are talking
>   about.

Certain individuals of the TMI have claimed... I haven't seen any
'official' statements on the subject. Lemma 1 falls.

>
>2) CD claims TMI is not the best mud around, because CD has done some
>   things better.  This is clearly correct, as CD has some rather talented
>   people, a few of whom actually know what they are talking about.

There have been no such claims whatsoever. In fact we don't claim to
be best at CD. We claim to be different. We don't measure in terms of
best at all, so this claim is totally meaningless. Lemma 2 falls.
>
>3) There are other drivers around, and most of them are available by
>   FTP.  But the people at CD and TMI will have examined these muds, and
>   incorporated their good ideas into their respective drivers.
>   Therefore, there can be no publically available drivers better than
>   CD's or TMI's.

No, most drivers are not available by FTP, we haven't examined more
than a few of the ones that are. Neither have we incorporated all of
their goodies. Lemma 3 falls.
>
>4) Since programming a mud is an intensely personal thing, anyone
>   maintining an extremely good driver will occasionally post about it.

The word occasionally is not stringent enough for the proof of
anything that that occurs in a limited scope of time. If occasionally
means once per 50 years for a certain given idividual, the likelyhood
of this individual posting in the slightly less than 3 years that
LPMud has existed is extremely small. Lemma 4 is meaningless.


[ Proof with 3 false and one lame lemma deleted ]

Of course the lemmas may be true in a hypothetical world; for instance
the (maybe non-existing) mind of Mr McGaughy; but in the so called
normal world, empiric evidence do not support them.

So, SW may, or may not exist, depending on the way that you define
existance, and it may or may not be the best mud around, depending on
the way you define best, and the way you define mud. Of course,
depending on the way you define things, a small and rather scruffy
looking pinetree in the northern part of Norway may qualify as the
best (un)avaliable mud.

It is of course in no way implied that there are more likenesses
between SW and scruffy conifers than the fact that they are equally
qualified to carry the label 'best mud'.

Jacob Hallen