Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 12:27:09 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 14:58:52, blass uri wrote: >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. Noone but you used the number 5. I suggest reading your own messages one more time. >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. What you think isn't really the question. The fact is that the sentence: "I think 5 people is big enough to allow discussion about a subject." cannot be interpreted as anything but a lower limit. >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. No, the above example is an upper limit, so the logic isn't the same. Otherwise all posts with more than 5 participants shouldn't be allowed. >Someone should start the thread so there must be at least one. If you read my original reply, I wrote that a single individual was enough. You snipped that and repeated it as your own argument. That's rather rude IMHO, which is why I made the zero participants remark. If you dislike being proven wrong, so be it, I really don't care, but you are wrong nonetheless. My advise would be to reread your messages. That's it as far as I'm concerned. Best wishes... Mogens
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.