Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 10 2009,12:24) | | Quote (Turncoat @ Dec. 10 2009,10:19) | Well, I just made somebody or another at UD piss his pants. I posted, without the least meanness or gloating, an explanation of how Dembski and Marks got a crucial point wrong in the "search for a search" analysis of their latest publication. Someone deleted it, and I don't think Clive has the mathematical acumen to know just how devastating my comment was.
I lost what I wrote to a page reload - stupid me - but I've posted Blunder in the new Dembski-Marks paper on my blog. |
| Quote | Bounded Science: Dembski and Marks believe that people search for search algorithms in a higher-order space Omega2. They write,
| Quote | | Let Omega2 be the finite space of all search algorithms on the search space Omega. |
The word I've emphasized is wrong, wrong, and wrong. The set of all randomized search algorithms is infinite, not finite. |
Quite an obvious error too—once you see it—, and something that many readers will be able to understand. Great catch!
-
Edited from Alpha to <span style='font-family:times'>Omega!</span> |
Just wondering - hopefully, this is not a stupid question, but do you think that they meant (or could come back and bluff that they really meant) a finite number of effective algorithms, and if so, were they hoping that this would make a difference? (Which of course it doesn't. As for the definition of "effective," this is Dembski we're talking about - Mr. Move-the-Goalposts himself.)
Man, I think you hit the cat out of the ballpark with this one! Elegant!
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
