Re: Phaistos Disk side B

From: grapheus (grapheus_at_www.com)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 23 Nov 2004 11:16:18 -0800

"Dylan Sung" <dylanwhs.tsktsktsk@pacific.net.hk> wrote in message news:<30gst3F3043opU2@uni-berlin.de>...
> "grapheus" <grapheus@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.0411230516.98bc1ca@posting.google.com...
> > Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:<41A2A52F.84B@alphalink.com.au>...
> >> Dylan Sung wrote:
> >>
> >> > My not being able to speak French fluently is not having an effect?
> >> > Well, I
> >> > haven't refused to read it, it's just I can't, or won't buy something
> >> > that I
> >> > am unable to read, in effect a book in a language that I don't fully
> >> > understand is unhelpful, as are comments like "go and read his books".
> >>
> >> Suppose you took the trouble, and learnt French, and went "and read
> >> his books". You won't find any MATHEMATICAL PROOF !!! Because the PROOF
> >> !!!
> >> would have taken 300 pages, says Grapheus (yes, with a capital "G";
> >> j'ai été à l'école, moi).
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway:
> >>
> >>
> >> <> > In one of his papers, c. 20 years ago, I remember J.F. writing that
> >> he
> >> <> > needed a 300 pages MATHEMATICAL BOOK to correctly explain his
> >> <> > Statistical Calculations
> >>
> >> that was Grapheus soi-même, quoted by Herman Rubin.
> >>
> >> It is the very first hit returned by a search
> >>
> >> "300 pages" grapheus
> >>
> >> put to dejanews (oui, je sais, il y en a des qui qui vont
> >> faire chier: "a pus dejanews, c'est google". C'est
> >> groups.google.com mes cocos, et dejanews.com ça prend
> >> moins de temps à taper, et ça y renvoie, alors je vois
> >> pas pourquoi je me ferais chier. Par contre si vous vous
> >> tenez absolument à clavioter pour rien, personne ne
> >> vous en empêche).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22300+pages%22+grapheus&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=sci.lang.*&selm=cculc2%244gje%40odds.stat.purdue.edu&rnum=1"
> >
> > What is nice with this story is that the ONLY ARGUMENT of
> > Herman-Rubin-THE-expert is :
> > "I cannot believe it..."
> > Happily, he adds that "too many good statisticians have gone astray by
> > making invalid assumptions"...
> >
> > One can just say : Amen !
> >
> > grapheus
>
> Are you "a specialist in Bayesian or non-Bayesian Calculus of Probabilities
> ?" to understand the three hundred pages of calculations, which no one else
> has seen?

I already told you, but I will REPEAT it in capital letters, just FOR
YOU : I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.
Period.

> I take it you are, despite your not being a mathematician, since
> you accept and understand JF's decipherment.

I accepted it because
1)- I don't care about the way it has been reached through
mathematical calculations. As J.F. explained to me, HIS METHOD HAS
BEEN OF PROBABILISTIC NATURE, and therefore CANNOT BY ITSELF warranty
the validity of the decipherment. Even if it has 99,99 % chances to be
right, there is STILL A CHANCE FOR IT TO BE WRONG. Please notice
that, not being a mathematician, I MAY UNDERSTAND SUCH A THING. (But
some others, who pretend to be mathematicians can't !!!).
2)- I have carefully STUDIED THE PRESENTED EVIDENCE (which is not
mathematical, but enters into my domain of competence), and found it
sufficiently DECISIVE for leaving no place to doubt.

Satisfied ?..

grapheus
 
>
> And when HR says "I am referring to the two missing formulas, the one giving
> N for signs occurring more than 5 times in a sample text, the other giving N
> for signs occurring less than five times." why don't you tell us how they
> are arrived at, and let us see if we understand it or not, rather than you
> assuming we don't. If you're an author and assume your readers are stupid,
> why publish your work at all, since it won't be appreciated? I take it, JF
> does not think this way. grapheus, you know him better than the rest of us,
> perhaps you could ask him to post it up on ANISTORITON.
>
> Plenty of people put up revisions, amendments and errata on line. Ken Lunde
> did so for his book on CJKV Information Processing when he was still with
> his publishers, I don't see why JF could not agree to show us the extra 300
> pages online, as interest in it is growing. He can just scan them and place
> it up, or perhaps open a new webpage for his own personal use. I hope this
> isn't disparaging for the author, as I'm sure being the scholar he is, he
> would like others to appreciate his efforts which he has put in over the
> last thirty years, and what better way to do it, than make it all public.
>
> Dyl.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Machiavellian Story (Was : PROOFS...)
    ... work of grapheus. ... not being a mathematician would gloss over it because you ... principles by which JF's workings go, it is would reveal his thinking behind ... reproduce his calculations, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: A Machiavellian Story (Was : PROOFS...)
    ... work of grapheus. ... not being a mathematician would gloss over it because you ... principles by which JF's workings go, it is would reveal his thinking behind ... reproduce his calculations, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Phaistos Disk side B
    ... since we've got a reluctant grapheus. ... >> grapheus, you might not be a mathematician, but at least you understand ... >> logic of the principle of reproducibility. ... > the decipherment is the correct one. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Finesse or not
    ... Not that I'm a mathematician, nor do I play one on TV, but this whole ... one can conclude that East is more likely to be short in clubs than ... factorials the calculations really aren't hard to do in you head ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: Phaistos Disk side B
    ... since we've got a reluctant grapheus. ... > grapheus, you might not be a mathematician, but at least you understand the ... > logic of the principle of reproducibility. ... the decipherment is the correct one. ...
    (sci.lang)