Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 14:26:19 10/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2001 at 13:49:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 07, 2001 at 10:53:22, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>>>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. > >Yeah, that does sound a bit harsh and I probably shouldn't have been so >downright honest, but thats the way I am, I call it like I see it. > >Fact of the matter is, you didn't want to discuss Turing machines, nor did you >in any way attack the evidence layed before you. You continued to discuss these >designs of algorithms. >I am sorry, but that is typical of "untrained" minds (how can I say this without >insulting you?). You have to work harder to insult me. How my mind has been trained is not a matter of insult. It might be for some people with big egos, not my case. >The proper way to go here (for the party that believes in super linear speedup), >would be to do a bit of research on some of Bob's references. Then come back and >explain why the "proofs" are invalid. >Heck we might actually end up agreeing here ;) >But when they simply ignore our proofs, then _that_ is an insult, and we just go >round and round... We are not going round and round. We made some progress, for instance even though and agreement was not made we found that we were not talking exactly about the same thing. In fact, Bob recognize that doubling ALL the resources there could be a superlinear speed up. Now, discussion might center on few levels of disagreement that I posted before, doubling only the CPU's; however, things are different. > >>>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..." > >Well I was annoyed too, and I was trying to move the discussion to a different >level. But you are right of cause, lame attempt to pull rank ;) > >>>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? > >I think he has mentioned everything, but there are so many different intermixed >discussions going on, so its kinda hard to follow. > >But I believe that bottlenecks and efficiency are things that work _against_ >making a good parallel algorithm, not _for_ it. You _believe_. That is an experimental perception of the problem and not a proof. CPUs might change in the future, Bob thinks that the trend won't change but still is not a theoretical demonstration. That is the level 3 of discussion that only the future will tell. Miguel > >>Regards, >>Miguel > >Cheers, >Sune
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.