To you perhaps. But others did not seem to have a problem with it. [1]
> PG won't respond to deny this.
I would hazard a guess that pg has better and more fulfilling things to do.
> That was a good and helpful suggestion
> I wrote a good post. The CS community lost out.
> my outline said to 'mathematize' CS. That suggestion is potentially earth shaking
The question is, is there anybody else who thinks so. The only praises, "earth shaking" or otherwise, that your comment got seems to be from you.
> CS profs can struggle on their own to get published without my help.
A delusion of grandeur couldn't be more apparent.
It is bit if of a bummer if in a discussion about CS theory you are not willing to address computability. Yes there are axiomatic basis to probability theory, but the question is: are those axioms sound, if so, then prove it. It will be a huge contribution and will have no trouble getting accepted if its correct.
No first order logic or equivalent and (axiomatic set theory is one) has the power to capture the whole real line. Non-standard analysis is the only one that tries to approach analysis with computable numbers.
Trust me, there is more to CS than real analysis and measure theory. I am sure you have heard of this aphorism about having one hammer and seeing only nails. Gratuitous unsolicited and smug advice that is not germane to the post, that too offered without understanding the field does no one any favors. If you delve into formal methods in CS you will actually encounter a lot of these methods that you are pointing to. Ask any CS theorist and they probably own the two volumes of Feller and will wax eloquently about them.
You are, yet, again extrapolating (to conferences) from your experiences with some journal. You are also contradicting yourself. If I understood you correctly, your main claim was that, what's stopping people from getting published is insufficient grounding in math. Then you give an example of your own submission that was mathematical but met resistance when you tried to publish it in a journal. Do remember journals have lower thresholds and higher acceptance rates than conferences.
1: Often the desire to push yourself on others can get in the way of comprehension.
To you perhaps. But others did not seem to have a problem with it. [1]
> PG won't respond to deny this.
I would hazard a guess that pg has better and more fulfilling things to do.
> That was a good and helpful suggestion
> I wrote a good post. The CS community lost out.
> my outline said to 'mathematize' CS. That suggestion is potentially earth shaking
The question is, is there anybody else who thinks so. The only praises, "earth shaking" or otherwise, that your comment got seems to be from you.
> CS profs can struggle on their own to get published without my help.
A delusion of grandeur couldn't be more apparent.
It is bit if of a bummer if in a discussion about CS theory you are not willing to address computability. Yes there are axiomatic basis to probability theory, but the question is: are those axioms sound, if so, then prove it. It will be a huge contribution and will have no trouble getting accepted if its correct.
No first order logic or equivalent and (axiomatic set theory is one) has the power to capture the whole real line. Non-standard analysis is the only one that tries to approach analysis with computable numbers.
Trust me, there is more to CS than real analysis and measure theory. I am sure you have heard of this aphorism about having one hammer and seeing only nails. Gratuitous unsolicited and smug advice that is not germane to the post, that too offered without understanding the field does no one any favors. If you delve into formal methods in CS you will actually encounter a lot of these methods that you are pointing to. Ask any CS theorist and they probably own the two volumes of Feller and will wax eloquently about them.
You are, yet, again extrapolating (to conferences) from your experiences with some journal. You are also contradicting yourself. If I understood you correctly, your main claim was that, what's stopping people from getting published is insufficient grounding in math. Then you give an example of your own submission that was mathematical but met resistance when you tried to publish it in a journal. Do remember journals have lower thresholds and higher acceptance rates than conferences.
1: Often the desire to push yourself on others can get in the way of comprehension.