David Hart wrote:
On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which Conway's
efforts were described, and it is transparently clear from this
quote that the method Conway used was random search:
I believe this statement misinterprets the quote and severely
underestimates the amount of thought and design inherent in Conway's
invention. In my option, the stochastic search methodologies (practiced
mainly by his students) can be considred 'tuning/improvement/tweaking'
and NOT themselves part of the high-level conceptual design. But, this
topic is a subjective interpretation rabbithole that is probably not
worth pursuing further.
No, not at all.
Conway is still alive, you know. Why doesn't somebody ask him?
I defend what I say to the hilt. Conway and his helpers knew what
target they were aiming for (they decided on one aspect of the global
behavior before time), but I believe they did nothing at all besides try
various possibilities until one of them worked.
I can find no evidence, anywhere, of any theorems, or any mathematical
analysis that allowed them to target a specific set of rules that would
give them the birth-death ratio that they were looking for.
If anyone does believe that they did some analysis to achieve this goal,
the onus is on them to find it. Failing all else, ask Conway himself.
It is not good enough for people to go around making wild allegations
(as Linas did yesterday), without any supporting evidence, and then for
me to produce apparently clear counter-evidence, only to have it
dismissed by some vague suggestion that perhaps I may have
misinterpreted the evidence.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
