Chip~ On 6/12/05, Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like like to note for other readers and the p6i archives that > Piers has failed to grasp the problem, so the solution seems pointless > to him. I'm sorry that's the case, but I've already explained enough.
This response worries me firstly because of its rudeness and second because of the problem itself. As I see it there are four possibilities a: 1) Chip is right, Piers is wrong. This is a complex problem and refusing to explain it means that others will doubtless also misunderstand it, which you have a chance to preempt here. 2) Chip is wrong, Piers is right. This is a complex problem and refusing discussion on it would be a costly mistake. 3) Chip is right, Piers is right. The two of you have are working from a different base set of definitions/axioms or misunderstood each other in some other way. 4) Chip is wrong, Piers is wrong. Shutting down open conversation so forcefully and caustically will prevent discussion in the future and this problem will continue to haunt parrot as no viable solution has been seen. Regardless of which of these possibilities is true. I see a need for more discussion of this issue. Preferably a discussion that does not degrade into backhanded insults. I have my own ideas about this problem, but I will save that for another response. Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -???
