Re: Transactions: good or bad?

> After you demonstrate the basic ability to comprehend simple statements of
> fact, perhaps I'll start caring about your opinions of me. In the meantime,
> I simply observe that you are a ridiculous little monkey beating his chest
> and waving his arms about. Nobody will lose sleep tonight worrying over who
> pisses further or longer.
>
>

That's all BS Bob.

The fact that you don't see any connection between game theory and proof theory, that only shows how ignorant you are, so I won't waste my time spoonfeeding you advanced mathematics.

Frankly, if you were not aware of this connection you shouldn't be in this discussion making the claims you make. Go read J. Y. Girard.

Repeat after me: chess games are not machines. To claim that we should look at them as machines is simply bullshit, and has no consequence whatsoever on this discussion.

You were trolling me all along about chess being infinite.

When I say "chess admits a finite model", "chess is finite" only incompetent or trolls can read into it that there are can not be infinite parties.

The fact that you don't see the relevant connection between evaluating a position or deciding the next best move, and constructing a proof in a formal system, while you claim to see a connection between an chess program playing ad-infinitum and proof theory, makes you further incompetenet or further troll.

If I was having to do with an intelligent interlocutor, he'd have seen long time ago where chess playing programs and proof constructing programs are similar and where they differ, and he'd have come with some relevant argument if there's one to be made. But no, Alfredo claimed that chess playing programs are a sign of "intelligence", and you seconded him all along by trolling me. Complete BS.

With regards to your philosophical trolls.

You claim you make no philosophical statement, yet here's just 2 the most stupid:

 >For now. Before long, computers will create humans.

 >I only observed that computers have demonstrated superior ability to humans for proving some theorems just as they have demonstrated superior ability to humans for summing large unpredictable series of numbers.

"Have demonstrated superior ability to humans" or as you said before are "beter" than humans at addition, is complete philosophical BS.

Because any normal thinking human, and not philosophizing clueless positivist, knows that part of the human condition is the ability to create tools and use them to our own benefit.

Therefore either your claim is trivially false, or it is trivially worthless as long as you restrict humans to being stupid and not using the tools they construct with their own intelligence, in this so called contest who adds faster.

You have a fast computer that adds quickly you say ? I'll buy a faster one no big deal.

To attribute some kind of value to the fact that computers can add fast or they can in theory exhaust chess analysis is pure philosophical BS. Received on Fri Jun 20 2003 - 00:25:58 CEST