Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<55ac24b1adc409a4a69fde34fc1ce349@www.rocksolidbbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: nnymous109@gmail.com (nnymous109) Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 19:28:12 +0000 Organization: RetroBBS Message-ID: <55ac24b1adc409a4a69fde34fc1ce349@www.rocksolidbbs.com> References: <85955d539da522cf777ab489101c0e2a@www.rocksolidbbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="432651"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="WGWI3FjRFxGJ6ITdWK0vrcDT1bUXKXnMN6DMEAZTkUA"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$6E/rcCU4LAu7NEXg6ZnE5uBEAP7LLUe5OW0Czp09vBDV87Q7gcKlm X-Rslight-Posting-User: 5809fff5c4fe67d6ec8559c4c0d41f9a0d5474cd Bytes: 2405 Lines: 26 I am, of course, very thankful that I, at least, have people to critique me and interact with what I have done. I also understand that time is a scarce resource, and there is no obligation to give me the benefit of the doubt especially as I have not written the paper in any way that is conventional. It may also be the case that there are simpler ways to say the things I have to say, and I am all for saying things as simply as possible without compromising what is meant to be said. But I think that to communicate what I mean to say with any accuracy, I would always have to refer to the paper. I guess technically I don't: whatever I can say in one language, I should be able to say in any other. But I feel it would be more expensive, inefficient and inaccurate to begin translation when I'm not even sure of the lingua franca in vogue. I end up writing novellas without being certain I've even made the point I'm trying to make. What I'm suggesting then, is that, time permitting, might a better strategy be for us to go through the document point by point (making notes, asking for clarifications, giving critiques, etc.), and then when we encounter an obstacle preventing us from going any further, we assess whether there is a path forward or whether the entire thing is dead? I'm in no hurry and can discuss a point over 2 weeks if that's what works, but I've written so much, and I don't know how much I've communicated.