Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled
From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Mack: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: David Eather: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:17:44 +0100
"David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> writes:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>> But I have the full mathematical theory...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I point out, that because you are unable to produce a working
> implementation, YOU DO NOT HAVE A THEORY AT ALL - in fact you only
> have a hypothesis, and it is wrong.
Up to now I can't see anything that could be called a coherent
hypothesis. He has a playfield, but has not stated anything concrete,
except completely incoherent and groundless stuff like "polynomial
time". If he had a hypothesis, one could test it. But so far I
haven't seen anything that could be called that.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Next message: Mack: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: David Eather: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading