I appreciate that it appears Elbserry and Shallit make the appearance of a good case, however they are badly mistaken. I wrote an informal refutation of their work here:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub.....00543.html

A lot of the math and formalities were kept to a minimum.

Salvador

No, it’s still here.

For the record, I’m no mathematician. All of you guys think up numbers so big only dogs can hear. I was trying to figure out why Bill would say that Shallit’s critiques were focused on trivialities, and in the same thread explain that the best response to critiques like that is to go & develop new lines of argument and write some new papers. To this non-mathematician that still does not compute. But hey.

”
Bill Dembski writes:

As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during the academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.
”

I guess Jeff couldn’t bear the fact he was being credited for helping an IDist.

Perhaps I shouldn’t say this but, but Shallit’s papers with Elbserry have had an effect promoting misunderstandings of you work. Someone like Emma Peel will see the pages of equations and well-formatted, scholarly looking papers and conclude that there is substance to Elbserry and Shallit’s critques, when in reality their papers attack an innacurate rendering of your work. In one of their works, they use 54 pages to make an impressive take down of what amounted to a strawman representation of your work. It was some of the most breathtaking mathematical theatrics I’d ever seen….

Regrettably, I had once actually sympathized with Elberry and Shallit’s assessment of your work. Their papers have the power to confuse the undecided middle into thinking they have refuted your case. Their papers, until one scrutinizes them carefully, are sufficient to make one seriously doubt the strength of your claims. It was only through the process of carefully reviewing their 54 page paper that I realized, they weren’t even using your definitions, but rather replacing them with convienient re-definitions. But the thing was Bill, the packaging and the offerring of equation after equation gave the veneer of a substantive take down. I can only hope more of the undecided middle will see through the veneer as I did….

Those familiar with algorithmic theories, math, can eventually see which side has the better case. I have worked on automatic target recognition systems for Army Night Vision, so I am familiar with the concepts in your work. It took time to weigh through the many pages in both your writings, and I’m pleased to say, it has become very clear you have a very good case.

Keep up the good fight Bill, and thank you for your hard work.

Salvador