Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled

From: David Eather (eather_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:05:38 +1000

David Kastrup wrote:
> "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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Agreed. At best he could claim a "conjecture" although more
realistically it would be "wild conjecture with flights of fantasy
and lacking any sound reasoning". I would just like him to stop
abusing the word "theory" - if he called it a hypothesis he can at
least modify it on the basis of experiment and the evolving ideas
without showing total ignorance and lack of respect for any
scientific procedure.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQf7x8pS9Fk5okqe7EQKGRwCg1TgdMrpQUOc7dYEc0MwxNeTIJiQAn18b
M69I0q+8MAaA5vdPMLX+3O4s
=tzH+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.