>> You do not need university to prove things. In fact it only gets in
>> the way of proof. Because their choice of language, maths, is ill-
>> suited for proving. It's better to stick to pure logic.
>>
>> I've proven logically that my algorithm is correct. I don't rely on
>> any assumptions. I didn't need University OR maths for that. Believe
>> it or not, maths is not the only language to express logic, in fact
>> it's a poor one.
>
> Wow. Sorry to chime in on this whole thing but I have to take issue
> with this statement..
>
> To summarise the above:
> Math is better suited to pure logic, and you've proven your algorithm
> using logic, but it's not the best language to express logic, in fact
> it's a poor one???
Nope. I said maths is NOT better suited to pure logic. Maths is better
suited to numbers, not to concepts. Logic is better suited to concepts.
> And I had to wade through the insane grammar used to get to that
> conclusion (or is American English really getting that bad...?).
I think it's your comprehension that is poor. You should stop
pretending you know more than you know and blaming your limitations on
other people.
> Seriously.
>
> Math is the only "science" we have that can actually "prove" anything.
Nope. Logic is. Maths is just a... dysfunctional version of logic.
It's unwieldy, and... impractical for real life purposes.
Honestly it just shows that you can't understand logic.
> Theo, we all love your work, but for Christ's sake stop being so
> defensive about it.
Who said I'm defensive? We were talking about the unnecessaryness of
the word "science" in "computer science".
My work just happens to be proof that people outside of the academia
do better logical work.
> Nothing is perfect, not even your algorithms.
I never said it is. Well I said it's proven to be correct. Not that
it's the fastest.
> And
> if you feel you need to take issue with that I've said please feel
> free to send me the mathematical proof showing that your string
> sorting algorithms are the best possible algorithms that could
> possibly be devised and I promise to shut up.
String sorting? I said "fuzzy string search". Not the same thing at all.
I can't possibly prove mine is "the best". I can prove however, that
it *works*, and is bug free.
What I am still unclear on, is the speed. I know my algorithm is
efficient. I just don't know how efficient the contenders are :) They
may be very good!
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|