Derek Nalls wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 11:16 PM UTC:
JL: You have a lot of imaginative and critical ideas on the subject of
piece values. Firstly, I have a couple of constructive recommendations.
1. Read my entire 65-page paper. Work with it until you understand it.
[At least, in theory. Preferably, in calculation.] Then, you will be
enabled to intelligently revise (and greatly shorten, I am confident) your
list of valid objections and problems you find with its theoretical
framework.
2. Create your own theory of the 'Universal calculation of piece
values'
(or whatever you consider appropriate to entitle it) that is roughly
consistent with measured, established piece values in FRC & CRC.
________________________________________________
Note that if your work is not substantially shorter than mine at appr. 65
pages, then it has nonetheless failed to achieve the supremely-important,
comparative advantage demanded by Occam's Razor- essentially, to produce
a
simpler or more elegant model that fully accounts for reality. This would
render your theory highly suspect of being comparatively, unnecessarily
overcomplicated ... despite how much you favored it or how hard you worked
on it. Be mindful that the more factors you explicitly accommodate and
calculate within your theory, the longer you make it. So, it is
critically
important to be as discerning as possible about what is and is not
non-trivially efficacious to measured piece values. [In other words,
leave
the rest of your observations and details in your private file notes, not
your public, published work.]
...
Finally, I should emphasize that my theory is primarily a workable
framework of calculation for FRC & CRC piece values and secondarily (by a
vast amount) an explanation of the concepts considered important enough to
merit calculation as factors. So, I actually have little interest in
semantic arguments about these concepts with anyone. Besides, if you
convinced me that the concepts I use to calculate are invalid, then my
calculations would be thrust into gross inaccuracy against measurable,
indisputable reality. I prefer to keep my calculations consistent with
established piece values in FRC worldwide and in CRC (esp. Muller's
experiments).
Hint: It is more important for criticisms to be very well thought through
than original works because original works are harder and more
time-consuming to create from scratch. Typically, I notice a lot more
sloppy, fast hellraising by trolls than conscientious work.
