On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are now apparently declining to provide an algorithmic solution without > arguing that not doing so is a disproof of your statement. > Or, in other words, you are declining to prove that Matt is incorrect in > saying that we have no choice -- You're just simply repeating your > insistence that your now-unsupported point is valid. >
This is tedious. I didn't try to prove that the conclusion is wrong, I pointed to a faulty reasoning step by showing that in general that reasoning step is wrong. If you need to find the best solution to x*3=7, but you can only use integers, the perfect solution is impossible, but it doesn't mean that we are justified in using x=3 that looks good enough, as x=2 is the best solution given limitations. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
