[EM] Mr O.: GSFC+SDSC pass for 'Tideman(wv)': the proof requested

[Craig Carey]

At 03:16 09.10.00 +0000 Monday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

>Markkus requested of Blake:
>
>>Could you please demonstrate that Smith//MinMax(wv) fails and
>>Tideman(wv) meets SDSC as Mike suggests?
>
>I haven't demonstrated that Smith//PC fails SDSC or GSFC. As I said,
>that will be demonstrated when I (or Blake) posts the failure
>examples for Smith//PC. I hope that Blake will post them.
>
>But I demonstrated that Tideman(wv) meets GSFC & SDSC, in my
>reply to you. I told you why any BC complying method meets those
>2 criteria. Then I told you why Tideman(wv) meets BC.
>
>If you don't agree with the reasons that I gave, feel free to tell
>me which part(s) of that discussion you don't understand the meaning
>of, or which part(s) you disagree with.
>
>Mike Ossipoff



Mike, I don't see any reasons there in the above. I presume you claimed
that they exist and they never ever have.

I request the 'demonstration', or better still, a proof for the claim
that the Tideman(wv) method passes "GSFC & SDSC". Tideman is a
defined method and it is defined at the website of Mr Cretney. The
2 rules that would test it certainly do not appear to be defined.

You shouldn't have even e-mailed such a vague reference ("I demonstrated
that...") while expecting that no one would believe you. It doesn't matter,
I am explicitly asking for the material implicitly claimed to exist
through the act of referring.

If there is a problem with these questions asking you to test some
"Tideman(wv)" method using GSFC and SDSC, then please let me and all the
rest be told of that.

Note that I am requesting proofs. I have an aim of seeing the "criteria"
inside of the proof. So a Boolean or restatement of the claim (which is
disputed) would absolutely not be satisfactory. You seem to be the least
accurate contributor to this mailing list, in the area of claiming to
proofs that almost certainly would be often very complex. The issues is
"existence" of proofs you claim to have, not their "validity". If you want
you can zip the proof up and e-mail it to me even with a condition of
confidentiality.

What about my others questions?. What about the questions Mr Schulze
asked?. These questions can become progressively simpler and simpler
and they could come from any of the subscribers you like to reply to.






E-mail: Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz>  (backup terratope at yahoo.com)
Auckland, NZ. |  Snooz Metasearch: http://www.ijs.co.nz/info/snooz.htm