Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 14:23:21 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 16:37:57, blass uri wrote: >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 I understand your point perfectly, and I think that when you say "5 people is enough to allow a thread to continue", 4 people could be enough too, you are just saying that 5 people is enough, not that 4 isn´t. I understood it this way when I read it, but Mogens understood it differently... Regards, Alvaro >Uri
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.