Author: Tony Werten
Date: 07:51:37 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2004 at 10:48:44, Tony Werten wrote: >On August 23, 2004 at 10:06:27, Peter Berger wrote: > >> >>On August 23, 2004 at 09:34:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>So, what you here basically miss is this: in an expert environment something has >>>been proven and we have one or two who can't believe it, also because they don't >>>understand what Paul had discovered. >> >>But that's exactly the "problem", Rolf. For example you don't understand the >>potential proof either, but it would not be reasonable if someone were >>disappointed about it IMHO, which was my point. You are right that there are >>others who can, but those who can't, can't judge, other than choosing to believe >>in conclusions others reached. The only thing an ordinary user can do is look if >>the statements themselves seem to make sense and sound logical, but you can't >>evaluate the assembler statements e.g., and if tomorrow someone else posted >>another explanation which is coherent, you wouldn't know who is right. So a >>baseless accuse and a perfect proof will look alike to you too - q.e.d. > >I guess that's why they have expert witnesses in court. They find somebody who >does know and believe him. > >Of several experts claim something, then you can't defend yourself anymore with >"I don't believe it because I don't know anything about it", you'll have to come >up with oposite prove. > >Being somewhat experienced with programming, I can tell you: "Code was copied." Oops, just found the 1 exception: "... If the 2 programs compared were Crafty en Chinito" Tony > >Tony
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.