> You do not need university to prove things. In fact it only gets in
> the way of proof. Because their choice of language, maths, is ill-
> suited for proving. It's better to stick to pure logic.
>
> I've proven logically that my algorithm is correct. I don't rely on
> any assumptions. I didn't need University OR maths for that. Believe
> it or not, maths is not the only language to express logic, in fact
> it's a poor one.
Wow. Sorry to chime in on this whole thing but I have to take issue
with this statement..
To summarise the above:
Math is better suited to pure logic, and you've proven your algorithm
using logic, but it's not the best language to express logic, in fact
it's a poor one???
And I had to wade through the insane grammar used to get to that
conclusion (or is American English really getting that bad...?).
It's a shame you're not in the academia circles Theo, you're papers
would at the very least give everyone a giggle or two.
Seriously.
Math is the only "science" we have that can actually "prove" anything.
Mathematical proofs are the only definitive proofs that there are.
Chemistry, Physics et al have never proven anything, they can only
disprove hypothesis and force us to settle for the the most likely
answer.
Theo, we all love your work, but for Christ's sake stop being so
defensive about it. Nothing is perfect, not even your algorithms. And
if you feel you need to take issue with that I've said please feel
free to send me the mathematical proof showing that your string
sorting algorithms are the best possible algorithms that could
possibly be devised and I promise to shut up.
- Tom Benson
QEDit Pty Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|