Re: Lethe's Bluff is Called; Is Dembski's Application of Wolpert's

On Jun 10, 4:10 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:31 am, T Pagano <not.va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 21:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Garamond Lethe

<snip>

At the end, I summarized Dembski.  Given the previous background,
summarization was sufficient for refutation.  If you understand what
the words mean that he's using (and that means being able to walk
through the proof of Wolpert's first theorm), Dembski's position is
simply goofy.

Here's where I call your bluff.  

I have both of Wolpert's papers (Theorems for Search and Theorems for
Optimization).  

What an interesting choice of verb.

You "have" the papers.

Yes, I expect you do.

You may have even let your eyes wander across the pages.

Does that count as reading?  Perhaps.

Does it count as understanding?  No.

Have a look at the proof of theorem 1 in the appendix of the published
paper (not the technical report).

See the Kronecker delta function?

What's that doing there?

It's a really neat trick:  that's the lever that allows them to
provide a proof for all possible algorithms averaged over all possible
search s
spaces.

Just so I can pitch future responses to an appropriate mathematical
level, would you mind describing how they pull off this trick?

(If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.  But if you don't, I'm going
to assume you don't have a particularly deep understanding of the
topic and will treat you accordingly.)

<snip>

Tony, your reply to my question of Wolpert's use of the Kronecker
delta function hasn't shown up. Posts have been getting lost
recently. Would you mind resending it?

Thanks.

fnord

.

Relevant Pages
Loading