Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/21/2010 12:49 AM, Chuck Harris wrote:
WarrenS wrote:
GandalfG8 Posted:
> "Snake Oil anyone?"
I nice short response, but it shows missed the MAJOR difference. You
need to see:
< http://www.thegleam.com/ke5fx/tpll.htm >
ws
No disrespect to you or John intended, but that is a data set of one
experiment.
We used to call that a High School Proof.
It takes an infinite number of experiments of that sort to "prove" a
conjecture.
It doesn't prove it, just makes it fairly likely correct.
Notice the quotation marks around the word "prove" in the above sentence.
That is an English language construct that is meant to show that something
is not quite right about the thing in the quotes. In this case, I am indicating
a looser version of "prove" than would usually be expected.
If there have been an infinite number of tests done, and all are verified as
correct, we have a pretty fair idea that the next test done will also be
correct...
but the verification is important... without it we cannot know for sure. The
infinite + 1st test could be the exception that disproves the conjecture.
But then again, "correct" is not available here. Sufficiently accurate
within some bounds is. These bounds can be of a myriad of types.
Absolutely! But because of our lack of information about the plan of the
device we will never know if Warren's a genius, or just another fool.
(I notice by your use of "correct" that you already know about that quote thingy
I mentioned above ;-)
As for the Warren style TPLL, a particular implementation needs to be
referred to, both in form of analogue design and digital processing.
From that limiting properties may be established. Some of these may be
compensated for enhanced performance.
Yep! That is the scientific method.
-Chuck Harris
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
