Marcus
This sounds a lot like the problem of verifying computer-generated
proofs like the early example of the 4 color problem. It might be
almost good enough to be able to verify each "step" of the proof and
the "logic" that it all hangs together with, even if no human can
claim to actually intuitively grasp the entireity of it?
Not a constructive proof, I'm claiming that from a bunch of wonky
premises the `candidate for proposed trust mode 3' can iterate a
argument forward in a useful, convincing, or subjectively interesting
way that causes me to listen for more.
Good point... though I *do* think that law purports to do something
similar to a constructive proof?
It might just be because they're a good at sales and that I'm a
sucker. The Kool-Aid is tasty, may I have another glass?!
I don't think you were born when that image was coined were you? Ok...
probably (1978) ... In a strange twist of fate, it turns out that
"Kool-Aid" gets the questionable "credit" for Jonestown, but the actual
flavoring was "Flavor-Aide", a lesser known flavoring like "Kool-Aid".
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
