Re: Some Simple Questions

From: Charlie-Boo (chvol_at_aol.com)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: 17 Mar 2005 20:01:17 -0800

David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2005 13:59:20 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com> wrote:
> >David C. Ullrich wrote:
> >> On 17 Mar 2005 06:02:30 -0800, "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@aol.com>
wrote:

> >> >1. If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their
> >> >paper that introduces and explains the system there are no
examples
> >of
> >> >an X that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system
cannot
> >> >produce X and the statement that it produces X is false?
> >>
> >> Of course not. What a stupid question.
> >
> >Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working? Why
> >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of
> >"stupid")? That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
> >science.
>
> Supposing for the sake of argument that my answers to those questions
> were
>
> >Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working?
>
> "Who knows? Bad idea = bad, bad, bad!"
>
> >Why
> >believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (speaking of
> >"stupid")?
>
> "no possible good reason, none whatever"
>
> >That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
> >science.
>
> "Absolutely, it certainly does",
>
> my answer to your first question would _still_ be
> "Of course not. What a stupid question."
>
> Why don't you read the question you asked again?
> You asked whether omitting a demonstration of
> something demonstrates that the something is false.

Not so. You're the one who didn't read the question (or are
intentionally misrepresenting it.) You are misquoting me. The
question was actually,

"If someone says "I have a system that produces X" and in their paper
that introduces and explains the system there are no examples of an X
that is produced, does that demonstrate that the system cannot produce
X and the statement that it produces X is false?"

Of course what you quoted is stupid. Since journals typically don't
publish the same result twice, for any result that has been referred to
more than once there will be at least one reference that doesn't
prove it within the same paper. But that's not what I said.

I specifically referred to "in their paper that introduces and
explains the system" (which you conveniently omitted), and for good
reason. The implications of this phrase include:

1. Being the paper "that introduces" the result, it will generally
be the one referenced most when that result is discussed, since (a) it
is the seminal paper, and (b) other papers are not likely to have a
complete proof (as alluded to above.) Furthermore, the first paper is
likely to be the one most difficult to get accepted for publication,
since subsequent papers have the acceptance of the earlier papers to
bolster their attempts to publish follow up reports.

Thus there is all the reason in the world for the authors to give as
complete and convincing an exposition as they can. It makes no sense
for them to be skimpy.

2. Since it is "their paper" (the originators of the system), they
are in the best position to be able to utilize the system to its
fullest. If they can't get it to produce anything, who can?

Or maybe you left out "in their paper that introduces and explains
the system" because you didn't realize the implications (above)?
That is, did you actually think that your quote was equivalent to what
I said?

Yes ==> you didn't realize the significance of the phrase you left
out. You were just being a bit dumb. ("I hadn't drank my coffee
yet." as you say.)

No ==> you intentionally presented a quote different from the actual
one. Shame on you.

> That's an awesomely stupid question, and nothing
> you say above has any relevance to that whatever.

(1) "Why leave out a demonstration of the system actually working?"
: If they give no examples, then they are not demonstrating that the
system is actually working. Thus I asked why they were leaving that
out.

(2) "Why believe something that hasn't been shown to be true
(speaking of 'stupid')? " : Since they haven't demonstrated
that the system can in fact produce X, they are suggesting that the
reader believe something that hasn't been shown to be true (which I
think one could reasonably characterize as being "stupid".)

(3) "That seems to me to violate fundamental principles of
science." : I think it's fair to say that in science one doesn't
believe claims without their being substantiated.

"Unproven statements carry little weight in the world of
mathematics." - Amir D. Aczel

C-B

> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some Simple Questions
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Thus there is all the reason in the world for the authors to give as ... did you actually think that your quote was equivalent to what ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >David Kastrup, David C. Ullrich, and David R Tribble wrote: ... >>> not originally written by Professor Ullrich. ... You quoted extensively without any such quote characters. ... >>> I can't believe the confusion of Cantorians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Double or One Half Paradox
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote ... > Johnson) wrote: ... was no reason to introduce that "factor".) ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: -- Algebraic Dual / Continuous Dual
    ... In article, David C. ... Ullrich wrote: ... Is there some reason I'm not seeing why these examples ... actually prove the general statement? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Double or One Half Paradox
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote ... > Johnson) wrote: ... was no reason to introduce that "factor".) ...
    (sci.math)
Loading