What! You don't have white crows where you live? Steve
On 4 June 2010 04:40, Don Latham <[email protected]> wrote: > Does it mean that if you have a can of white spray paint, you can produce > a white crow? > Don > > WarrenS >> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand. >> >> but I do think he missed the main point >> >> This does not need to prove what does and doesn't work with every example, >> only prove that is needed to answer ALL of Bruce's clams and concerns is >> if >> Oversampling will give good Integration results. >> Bruce has said integration works and non integrating does not work very >> good. >> we both agree on that, No problem >> >> The only problem is that Bruce had got himself in a corner by denying that >> high rates of oversampling will do integration. >> Once he has finally admitted that, now we can move on to the next thing, >> which I guess was why do I like H/W better than S/W. >> Now, I can understand why that would not be logical to many time nuts. >> But to say that oversampling does not provide integration, that is pure BS >> and I could not let it go. >> I don't know how Bruce got into the corner in the first place, I certainly >> give him all the chances to get out before this. >> >> The answer is: that ones needs to integrate the Freq, to get good ADEV and >> there are various ways to do it, each with it's own set of trades. >> The one I choose is working good enough. >> >> ws >> >> ********************* >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> the discussion between Bruce and Warren concerning Warren's implementation >> of NIST's "Tight PLL Method" has caused quite a stir in our group. >> >> My scientifical knowledge about the discussed topic is so much inferior >> compared to Bruce's one that I don't have the heart to enter a >> contribution >> to the discussion itself. It may however be helpful to have a look at the >> discussion from a "philosophy of science" point of view. >> >> The most basic form of logic is the propositional logic. A proposition in >> the definition of propositional logic is a linguistic entity which can be >> assigned a logic value like "true" or "false" or "0" or "1" without any >> ambiguity. Whether a proposion is true or false may depend on >> circumstances. >> For example the proposition "Today is tuesday" is true on tuesdays and >> wrong >> on all other days of week. >> >> Other proposions are true or false due to their logic construction. The >> combined proposition "Today is tuesday or today is not tuesday" is always >> true from a logic point of view despite the fact that you may consider it >> as >> kind of "useless". >> >> Propositional logic then deals with the question what happens when two or >> more propositions are combined by logic operators as in the second example >> with the operator "or". Since a proposition, say "a", and a second >> proposition, say "b", can only have the values of "0" or "1" it is easy to >> put every possible combination of a and b values into a simple diagram, >> for >> example for the "or" operator: >> >> a b a or b >> ------------ >> 0 0 0 >> 0 1 1 >> 1 0 1 >> 1 1 1 >> >> Most if not all of us not only know such diagrams but really make use of >> them in digital electronics. The well known operators are the "or", the >> "and" and the "negation" and indeed it can be shown that ALL digital >> operators can be constructed by a a combination of "negation" and either >> "and" or "or". BTW this is the reason why the first logic circuit to >> appear >> as a single chip, the 7400, was a quad NAND gate, a combination of >> "negation" and "and". The designers had learned their lesson and made >> their >> very first chip in a way that ALL possible combinations of two input >> variables could be realized with one type of chip. >> >> Nevertheless the 3rd column of the above diagram can be considered a >> four-digit binay value and so it becomes immediately clear that their must >> be a total of 16 different logic operators whith each of them producing a >> number between 0 and 15 (Decimal) or rather 1111 (Binary) in the 3rd >> column. >> Each of these operators has a name of its own. Although widely used in >> common speech one of the not so well known operators is the "formal >> implication", or "a implies b" as we say or "b follows from a". >> >> The "formal implication" has the logic diagram (which is identical to >> "(not >> a) or b"): >> >> a b a -> b >> ------------ >> 0 0 1 >> 0 1 1 >> 1 0 0 >> 1 1 1 >> >> What may look unspectular at the first glance in effect holds two of the >> most important supports of ALL scientific reasoning: >> >> While the third row of the diagram basically says that it not possible to >> achieve wrong results when logic is applied correctly to correct >> propositions, rows one and two say that logic may deliver wrong results >> (line one) or correct results (line two) if applied correctly to WRONG >> (false) propositions. That is why already ancient logicians knew: >> >> Ex falsi omnis >> >> which freely translated from Latin means as much as: "From wrong >> propositions everything can be condluded". >> >> One of the consequences of this is the fact that for a true proposition >> "b" >> the inference to the trueness of the proposition "a" from that it has been >> concluded is NOT possible. >> >> A second consequence of this is that NO scientifical theory can be >> verified >> by an experiment. A theory may formulate a proposition on the outcome of a >> certain experiment. Even if the outcome of the experiment and the >> proposition are in good congruence it would be completely wrong to infere >> that the theory is correct due to the experiment. >> >> It is possible to harden the theory by experiments. For this purpose it is >> necessary to produce a big number of different and indpendend propositions >> based on the theory and test each single proposition with an experiment. >> The >> more propositions and the more experiments the chance that the theory is >> correct increases but note that even with an unbound number of >> propositions >> and experiments this is no proof of the theory. Interesting enough that >> you >> need ony a SINGLE experiment to falsify a theory if the outcome of the >> experiment is different from the theory's proposition. What can really be >> infered from experiments and observations may also be shown by the >> following >> joke: >> >> A physicist, a mathematician and a logician are sitting in a train riding >> through Germany. Suddenly they notice a herd of sheep whith all being >> white >> with the exception of one which is black. >> >> The physiscist: "That is a proof that there are black sheeps in Germay" >> >> The mathematician: "You physicists are using the term 'proof' in a too >> relaxed way. If at all this is a proof that there is at least ONE black >> sheep in Germany" >> >> The logician: "Let's get serious: This is a proof that there is at least >> ONE >> sheep in Germany with ONE BLACK SIDE". >> >> So, what the heck has this all to do with the tight pll discussion? One >> thing that I had to read in a time nuts mail of the last days was: >> >>>> It doesnt, it only appears to in a very >>>> restricted set of circumstances. >> >>> Bruce, I don't understand you, when presented >>> with visual evidence that this method works >>> you still deny it. >> . >> . >>>> That doesn't work as it has the wrong >>>> transfer function. >> >>> Again, it it does not work, how come the >>> evidence shows that it does, how do you >>> explain that Bruce? >> >> Due to the criteria explained above the term "evidence" is used here in a >> too far-ranging way. The experiment performed by John Miles is NOT a >> "experimentum diaboli" in the sense that the outcome of the experiment >> would >> enable us to decide whether Bruce's or Warren's theory about his >> implementation of the NIST tight pll method is correct. It is not because >> it >> has not falsified anything. >> >> As far as my limited understanding of the topic allows me to judge: The >> outcome of the experiment is not a direct antithesis to anything that >> Bruce >> has remarked and if I see it correct the outcome of the experiment is by >> no >> means contested by Bruce. However, if we want to check who's right and >> who's >> wrong with experiments, we need to know that we need a lot of experiments >> with different references and different DUTs. If all combinations of all >> DUTs and all references in the hands of time nuts would lead to equally >> well >> results as in John Miles's experiment, that would allow to conclude that >> the >> method works ok for all practical aspects of time nuts life (however >> without >> the guarantee for every future experiment outcome). Having not done these >> experiments yet who knows whether there is a falsifying experiment among >> the >> set of combinations? >> >> Best regards >> >> Ulrich Bangert >> www.ulrich-bangert.de >> Ortholzer Weg 1 >> 27243 Gross Ippener >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > > > -- > "Neither the voice of authority nor the weight of reason and argument are > as significant as experiment, for thence comes quiet to the mind." > R. Bacon > > > Dr. Don Latham AJ7LL > Six Mile Systems LLP > 17850 Six Mile Road > POB 134 > Huson, MT, 59846 > VOX 406-626-4304 > www.lightningforensics.com > www.sixmilesystems.com > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > -- Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. - Einstein _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
