Life In 19x19

oren wrote:The problem is generally in your presentation of the facts and the advertisement on the forum.

palapiku wrote:Actual professional mathematicians have their work peer-reviewed, despite being the most mathematically experienced people on the planet. Even the greatest among them make mistakes.

Splatted wrote:I can't work out why you would want to avoid it anyway.

If you have a deep interest in Go theory, I'd think discussing it with strong players and other theorists would be something you'd go out of your way to do,

not avoid, especially if you've come up with some awesome theories of your own.

why not approach some people who's views might be more useful to you?

topazg wrote:the belief that "I went to university and therefore don't need my work to be peer-reviewed" is an utter jaw dropper for me.

RobertJasiek wrote: Economic necessity. About 4 months for writing a book is the upper limit. Peer review can delay for another 2 or 3 months (or more) because there are only very few experts with sufficient background knowledge and time. It makes much more sense to publish a book and, if necessary, correct a next edition [if creating a correction is economically feasible].

RobertJasiek wrote: Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

Javaness2 wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote: Professional mathameticians have the luxury of paid time and the need to be 100% correct. I have the luxury of being able to bear the zero or one mistakes pointed out after publication (and even the luxury of - from a strict mathematical POV - slightly imprecise definitions in Capturing Races 1). Can you find the first factual mistake in my ko paper? I have asked a couple of times now but there appears to be none (other than the historical detail that it is more than a rumour that also triple ko stones were invented by Matti Siivola).

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf

Just looked over the paper, isn't ko a mass noun?

hanekomu wrote:

Kirby wrote:I'm still hung up on your first post in this thread, Robert:

Yes, that seems to be a common problem.

Let's stop the personal attacks already.

HermanHiddema wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote: It is hard for me (and for many others) to accept someone's different view as objectively true if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons.

Yes, but in addition, it seems to be also hard for you to accept someone's different view as objectively true even if it is sufficiently supported by reasons.

Also, it seems to be hard for you to accept your own view as false even if it lacks reasons or sufficient reasons. This seems to be because you are not sufficiently able to be make the distinction between facts and you own opinions.

The result, which can be observed all over all the go discussion forums in the last decades, is thread derailment. It is not a coincidence that a much larger percentage of threads in which you participate tend to derail. Your style of discussion, due to the inability to see other peoples point of view, is the cause.

Now I do not think you do this on purpose (i.e. you are not deliberately trolling or such things), but it is rather hard to change the way your mind works. So I think the lesson to learn here, for most of us, is: Let it go. Ignore the outrageous claims that Robert makes. It is not productive to engage in discussion, you will just derail the thread. Ignore, provide alternative information to the other posters in the thread where appropriate, move on.

hyperpape wrote:My modest proposal was also motivated by the fact that for all the discussion, I do not know what your opinion on many questions is, Robert. For instance, do his theories:

1) allow him to evaluate potential novel joseki from recent professional games?
2) correct accepted josekis as unequal?

Or are they solely pedagogical?

The answers to these questions have probably appeared somewhere, but they are drowned under the massive back and forth exchanges (and this is what I mean by this interminable discussion ultimately being bad for you, Robert. I am a potential audience).