Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cbozeman

That would be a counter-counterexample, wouldn't it?

View on HN

The stacking of either term is unnecessary, because all counter-examples are also examples, thus:

* an example supporting the counter-example is simply another counter-example, and

* an example contradicting the counter-example is, by definition, also another counter-example.

Corollary: all examples that can be opposed or contradicted by counter-examples are themselves also counter-examples.

Nah, it supports the counter-example, so it's a counter-example example.

I'd say it refutes the counter-example. The court doesn't care about DKIM, they care about witness testimony.

DKIM might have convinced the witness sometimes though.

Courts typically do not care as much about what an expert witness thinks, as rather why they think it - and whether their reasons hold up enough that the conclusions they support should be accepted.

That is not quite correct. A court is undoubtedly interested in what an expert witness has to say.

It is the lawyers appearing before the court that may attempt to play the person not the ball, by variously undermining or bolstering their standing as an expert at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com