Author: blass uri
Date: 13:37:57 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 16:09:44, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >On August 07, 2000 at 16:06:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On August 07, 2000 at 15:45:06, blass uri wrote: >> >>>"when questions about crafty is asked ....moderators (some) requests to use the >>>crafty mailing list. ( yesh i know crafty has a mailing list and CM doesnt). but >>>if you really look around there are ATMOST 5 peoples who are actually interested >>>in CM book or anything regarding it. But there are literally 100s of people who >>>are interested in crafty questions." >>> >>>You can see the words ATMOST 5 peoples >> >>Yes, I missed that one, but it really doesn't change anything about your remark. >> >>>If you look at the posts that should be allowed than the fact that 5 >>>participants should be allowed prove that more than 5 should be allowed but does >>>not prove nothing about the cases of less than 5. >> >>The upper bound is unimportant because we're talking about participation. But >>your statement, whether you like it or not, introduces a lower limit. >> >>>The same logic is for mate. >>> >>>The fact that the program found that there is a mate in at most 5 moves proves >>>that there is a mate in at most 6 moves but does not prove if there is or there >>>is not a mate in 4 moves or less than 4 moves. >> >>That isn't a relevant comparison because of your statement. The interpretation >>about less than five participants is clear, so the mate argument doesn't really >>help all that much. Because you _did_ imply that threads with less than 5 >>participants shouldn't be allowed by saying that 5 or more should be allowed. >>There's only allowed or not allowed. Nothing inbetween. >> >>Best wishes... >>Mogens > >By saying participants, you mean people following the thread too ? > >Regards, >Alvaro The first post was about readers. The poster said that there are at most 5 people who are interested in the post and I replied that 5 is enough to allow the subject. I did not say that less than 5 is not enough but only reponded to the poster. I meant that 5 readers are enough to allow the posts in both subjects and say nothing that less than it is not enough. Uri 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.