Re: Re: VMs: Re: SHUGBOROUGH CODE (OT?)

["jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry Gabriel,

that was a silly joke - we all know the real, valuable achievements of Bletchley Park.  What was published in that article  is very interesting but highly unsatisfactory in comparison with the historical record. That is  of course no fault of "Bletchley Irregulars". Neither am  I questioning the jury's decisions, they were judging the methods only, but how much  it included the real possibility of the success? Since no true solution was found, the probabilities of success for each method cannot be established too accurately - wouldn't it be funny  if the lowest rated contender  may actually reach the right solution?  For "possible" solutions we can get only the "possible" evaluation.

One lesson we can learn from it for  the solution of the VM:  we also often judge different "possible" solutions by "estimated probability of the success" rather than by results. That brings in  play the unnecessary bias and instead of  all  kinds of objections we should ask mainly for results. That would establish the success of each method much better than some prejudgment. Again, this is  not some criticism of what we are doing, only the cry for more effectivness.

jan   
  
=======  You wrote:  
>On Monday 29 November 2004 22:51, jan wrote:
>> Bletchley Park did it again!
>
>No, I don't think that they did. Read the article.
>"Possible" solutions.
>
>Cheers,
>
>G.
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
>unsubscribe vms-list

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
 



______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list