Author: blass uri
Date: 11:58:52 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 14:28:23, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On August 07, 2000 at 13:11:59, blass uri wrote: > >>I did not say that there is a lower limit > >Yes, you wrote > >"I think 5 people is big enough to allow discussion about a subject." > >Which implies that less than 5 shouldn't be allowed to discuss a subject. >Thereby the lower limit is 5. Don't resort to poor excuses. This is your interpretation. I responded to the claim that the subject should not be allowed because there are at most 5 people who are interested in the subject. It was clear to me that I disagree about it. I did not express opinion about cases when there are less than 5 people because I did not think about this case when I responded. If a chess program has evaluation of mate in 10 it means that there is mate in at most 10 moves. It does not prove that there is no mate in less than 10 moves. The logic is the same logic. > >> but the fact is that there is a lower >>limit. > >Yes. > >>The number of participants must be at least 1 and the number of followers must >>be at least 0. > >There can zero participants. However, the threads are not very exiting. Someone should start the thread so there must be at least one. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.