|
|
|
|
|
|
by Veserv
22 days ago
|
|
|
Claims do not support themselves. The claim is unsupported by evidence and thus the burden of proof is on them or you to produce that evidence. As the author and implementer of the algorithm allegedly prepared, ran, and analyzed benchmarks they obviously, by far, have the easiest time producing the evidence for their claim. Your argument that the poster needs to go read, implement, integrate, and benchmark the algorithm to to generate evidence to counter the absence of evidence for the claim is ridiculous. It would be as easy as 1-2-3 for the author to present their evidence to meet their burden of proof, yet you are demanding a extraordinary level of effort by the poster to present evidence against when they do not even have the burden of proof. This is further ridiculous because the author or you would merely need to support the positive claim, where as you are demanding the poster demonstrate the negative, and all this before there is any evidence. You should really stop with the unnecessarily combative tone when your entire model of argumentation is completely backwards in every respect. |
|
|
OK?
> Your argument that the poster needs to go read, implement, integrate, and benchmark the algorithm to to generate evidence to counter the absence of evidence for the claim is ridiculous.
The poster didn't complain that evaluating the claim was work they couldn't be arsed to do, they complained that they could not evaluate the claim because they were legally bound to accept it. Both parts of that declaration were and are factually wrong.
> It would be as easy as 1-2-3 for the author to present their evidence
The author implemented this algorithm as an employee 20 years ago, they do not own and can not provide the original code, they would have to reimplement it from scratch (possibly from the patent if they didn't otherwise publish it, which I assume they did not since they link to the white paper but not an actual paper and apparently had to make up a name for it just now). They might have an edge from being more familiar with the domain, but given the poster's dismissal I'm sure they're deeply familiar with the subject.
And given the tone, the author is (well was, the post is 6 months old) just showing this cool thing they made back then, which they can now usefully talk about (since previously it was patent-encumbered), and give some history for.
> you are demanding the poster demonstrate the negative
I am doing no such thing.