> The argument itself is extremely rigorous: on all the occasions on which > someone has disputed the rigorousness of the argument, they have either > addressed some other issue entirely or they have just waved their hands > without showing any sign of understanding the argument, and then said "... > it's not rigorous!". It is almost comical to go back over the various > responses to the argument: not only do people go flying off in all sorts of > bizarre directions, but they also get quite strenuous about it at the same > time.
Richard, if your argument is so rigorous, why don't you do this: present a brief, mathematical formalization of your argument, defining all terms precisely and carrying out all inference steps exactly, at the level of a textbook mathematical proof. I'll be on vacation for the next 2 weeks w/limited and infrequent email access, so I'll look out for this when I return. If you present your argument this way, then you can rest assured I will understand it, as I'm capable to understand math; then, our arguments can be more neatly directed ... toward the appropriateness of your formal definitions and assumptions... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
