Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:54:55 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 19:51:10, Ralf Elvsén wrote: [snip] >Ok then, you are right that people have no proof. Even this statement is too strong. People have not formally proven the assertion, but that is not the same thing as "no proof." >But I think those people >mean something like "evidence no reasonable person can reject" rather than >proof in a scientific meaning. I am reasonable (well, let's not debate that!) and I reject their proof. One counter example will disprove a conjecture, such as the one above. >And the former is in my opinion what one >should look for in a case like this. As in too many discussions the combatants >are using words in different ways. I think you should interpret "proof" as >"evidence" and let the matter rest, or point out their sloopy use of the words. Here, you are probably right. And perhaps it is silly to argue over definitions, especially when the conclusions are probably correct anyway. I'm still not 100% convinced, but (as I have said before) I do think the evidence is leaning towards the 'GM conclusion.' >Ah, sorry for telling you what to do... :) It's good to question everything. You see I'm not bashful about it. Why should you be?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.