Talk:Copyright makes no sense

i agree

i do sincerely agree with you :D

check out what i made! :D Cinnamony (talk)

deletion

if they wanna delete jail system makes no sense, then they gotta delete this one too. its incorrect and nothing to do with esolangs. tommyaweosme BRING BACK THE OLDS SANDBOX (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether this article is related to esolangs is a separate issue. However, calling the proof "incorrect" is meaningless. The proof is correct because it has been formally verified using a theorem prover. What may be subject to judgment is the interpretation of the proof. --Hakerh400 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The inference might be correct, but the axioms are wrong (specifically axiom 3, which is too general with respect to "some way"). A proof doesn't just need correct reasoning to be correct – it also needs to start from correct premises. --ais523 18:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The correctness of formalization can only be discussed in the presence of a clear specification of the concept being formalized. Currently, there is no formal definition of what copyright is (and the author believes there will never be one), so it remains subject to personal interpretation. --Hakerh400 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The hole in the proof is that there aren't infinitely many symbols usable for books. Turing gave an argument in a footnote in Turing 1936, explained here [1] that printed/written/drawn alphabets are always finite. The proof therefore requires a stronger axiom (2); there must be a free book with all of the characters used in the copyrighted book from (1) so that (3) can be passed some non-trivial copy-and-paste instructions. If you really want infinitely many symbols, then ais523's concern still manifests as a question of relevance (in the sense of wikipedia:relevant logic). However, it should be obvious that a wikipedia:one time pad can always be chosen whenever book (2) is longer than book (1), and so the overall argument still remains potent; lawyers really should figure out what a transformation is. Corbin (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Finiteness of the alphabet is irrelevant. Replacing list ℕ with list bool does not impact the proof. Additionally, expanding axioms 1 and 2 to require the presence of both symbols in the books is also inconsequential. --Hakerh400 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)