I asked how his statement could be true while your statement could be false (which would show that even if his statement was granted then your statement could b

I asked how his statement could be true while your statement could be false (which would show that even if his statement was granted then your statement could be new and non-obvious). You replied by claiming that his statement isn't justified while your statement is. This is a formalization of an intuitive argument, not a surprising dissolution of a paradox. In other words, if other researchers had considered his statement and dismissed it without doing the sort of analysis being formally written up in this paper, then those dismissive researchers would have been making a mistake. As I said elsewhere, I think these sorts of formalizations are really very helpful. Perhaps, given the sloppy thinking in this area, even more helpful than novel results. I generally think review articles are distillation is vastly undersupplied