Bryan Olson wrote: > Randy wrote: > > email@example.com wrote: [...] > > > > Interesting. I've read several books on higher CS theory and apparently > > gained little or nothing from them. It's time for me to stop defending > > the value of computational complexity and join the chorus of those who > > find it rigorously meaningless to them as practitioners. > > Even if we grant that, how does it justify your post? Where you're not > wrong, you don't make enough sense to be wrong. > > > Congrats, Steve. By quibbling over nits rather than explaining > > concepts, that was your intent right? > > Don't blame Stephen for your errors. There are plenty explanations > of concepts around, now unfortunately including yours.
OK. Let's take a giant step backward to give some perspective.
You can argue or you can explain. The only goal of the former is to win. Unfortunately, like the OP, I was looking for explanation and understanding, not combat. However on Usenet, the latter is pretty much all there is.
Apparently winning was Steve's goal, so I congratulated him. Congratulations to you too, Bryan.