Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 07:53:22 10/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2001 at 04:30:20, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 04, 2001 at 21:32:07, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>I am starting to get a tiny bit annoyed by the tone of this discussion. I >>ignored already several sarcasms about the mobile perpetuum, several dialectic >>tricks to show that the other part knows nothing and the prestige is in only one >>side etc. Now making fun? > >I'm sorry, but I think one needs a bit of humour in cases like this. Am I allowed to make fun of you too? >>If you want a real discussion, please, get off the >>horse, get off the pulpit, stop calling yourself scientist at any occasion that >>you can (we know you already) to diminish the argument of the opposition and >>saying things like "this go round and round..." like you are tired to answer >>things to little kids. > >Bob has called himself a scientist? Yes, in fact you did it too. In another message you said: "As a scientist I am used to seeing proofs, understanding them, and then moving on. I don't debate forever if A=C, when I know A=B and B=C. I guess I have to get used to the fact that not all people are trained in the language of science." So, that means that you inferred that the ones who disagree in this discussion are not trained in the language of science. Yes, we are all dumb. >Well regardless, he is a professor and we are discussing a topic he has studied >for years and years. >For me, the professors are to science what GMs are to chess, when they talk I >listen! But I haven't seen Bob trying to pull-rank anywhere, so I don't know why >you are so upset. As I said above, I am not upset, just tiny bit annoyed. You are not going to see any serious scientific discussion when one side start with "As a scientist I..." >And don't you see it going round and round? >You bring one example, Bob explains why it doesn't work, you bring another >example and Bob explains why it doesn't work.... I did no bring any example yet. >>Sune: I have not tried any perpetual motion machine in the original message >>and in fact what I say is very similar to what you agreed with me already. > >No, that was just my analogy to this discussion. >Your examples may in principle be infinite complex, but the design of the >algorithm is litterally insignificant, because Turing and others has already >proven it can't be done. It is simply a matter of finding the flaw in the >design, we know it's there somewhere. Has he talked about efficiecy and bottlenecks? Regards, Miguel
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.