NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2014,00:55) | | After my presenting a testable model with included Theory of Operation the constant demands for operational definitions and endless evidence are just annoying red-herrings, which attempt to make it appear that I gave this forum nothing to study and test. |
As always, you are in error (and perhaps denial).
You have provided no model, not even of a fantasy object.
You have presented no operational definitions.
You do not have a theory, still less a "Theory of Operation".
You have given the forum nothing to study nor to test.
Your document is an absurdity, not even suited to be surrealist literature, let alone standard English prose.
Your software bears no resemblance to your "theory", nor does it model the various "elements", "layers", or structural escherisms of your "theory". This has all been pointed out, in extreme detail and with exhaustive annotation, over the past 406 pages. You've not responded to, nor rectified, any of the howling errors in your work, nor have you provided any of the requested missing pieces. Your inability to structure a logical framework is well demonstrated by your inability to structure a plain English paragraph. Your inability to explain is spotlighted for the world to see in your so-called "theory".
But just for laughs -- do please tell us why your "theory" should be considered to qualify as an actual theory. What do you consider the minimal qualifications a linguistic structure must meet to count as a theory? What elements, if present, would render a linguistic structure otherwise eligible to be considered a theory incapable of being so considered?
What have you done to generate your "theory" that in any way matches the standard generation patterns by which theories arise?
I'll get the popcorn.
|
