I dislike how often people pull this trick. ‘here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing’. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh.
Solving the is-ought problem is super easy when you change what “ought” means.
P=NP if N=1
from the same CS minds who brought you “the solution to the halting problem is trivial, just ask the computer if it halted. hyperturing!”
“This… statement… is… false! (don’t think about it don’t think about it don’t think about it…)”
“Uh, true, I’ll go with true.”
I dislike how often people pull this trick. ‘here are 5 definitions of this thing, we are going to pick one, prove something for it, and claim it also holds for all the other definitions, and never tell people we are working with a non-standard thing’. I get that the goal is to make the non-standard definition the standard, it is activism masking as logic, but eurgh.