On 1 Sept 2004, in the comp.lang.scheme newsgroup,
Ray Dillinger wrote:
Instead of addressing the troll's pretended points individually,
it is sufficient to post a message such as:
<$TROLL> is, according to the opinions of <list names and
qualifications> a crank whose ideas are without merit. We
have argued with him in the past and found him not only
without clue, but also actively clue-resistant. Because
arguing with him appears only to encourage him, and because
the argument is annoying and useless to the majority of the
newsgroup, we now choose not to continue. Specific
information about the subject matter here misrepresented
can be found at <$URL>.
Here is one such URL, devoted to one such troll. Please let us know if you would like to add your name to the list of endorsers of this FAQ, or if you wish to inform us of any errors that should be corrected.
comp.lang.scheme?
comp.lang.scheme?
comp.lang.scheme agree that Dr Richter
has been much less arrogant this time?
comp.lang.scheme?
comp.lang.scheme instead of
writing this FAQ?
comp.lang.scheme
to respond to Dr Bill Richter?
comp.lang.scheme think of
Dr Bill Richter?
Dr Bill Richter is an algebraic topologist. Following undergraduate study at Princeton, he received his master's degree from Northwestern University in 1982, and his PhD from the University of Washington in 1989. He has published at least three papers in major journals.
Unfortunately, Bill has "been out of work for nine years" (23 July 2004), "with no prospects" (16 August 2004), and complains that, in recent years, his peers in the mathematics community have prevented him "from submitting even a single paper" (11 August 2004).
Q:
Why has Dr Richter been posting to
comp.lang.scheme?
He thinks "it might marginally improve" his position if he "could teach something to" the computer scientists who participate in that newsgroup (16 August 2004).
Q:
How many messages has Dr Richter posted to
comp.lang.scheme?
As of 3 September 2004, Bill has posted 679 messages. By year:
2000 7
2001 198
2002 193
2003 20
2004 261
In 2004, his 261 messages were posted during a three-month period,
from 4 June through 3 September.
Q: Why did Dr Richter post so few messages during 2003, only to resume posting in June 2004?
During 2001 and 2002, Bill made himself unpopular by initiating and perpetuating several major flame wars. In his own words (11 August 2004):
But if we are done with the discussion, let me make a social point: A
big problem with the thread 2 years ago was my arrogant attitude, and
it was partly intentional. It looked to me then that my chances of
being hired in the CS/Programming world was poor, and my Math chances
were good. And I was kinda looking for my walking papers. I figured
I'd do better at Math if I worked on it exclusively. So I was pretty
happy with the outcome, getting kicked of c.l.s. and into Math. But 2
years later, my Math chances don't look so good. I'm not quite ready
to give up, but my guys have prevented me from submitting even a
single paper. Makes me think I'm not going to be able to parlay my
bug-fixes into a Math job. So I've been much less arrogant this time.
Q:
Do readers of comp.lang.scheme agree that Dr Richter
has been much less arrogant this time?
No.
Q:
What is Dr Richter trying to teach readers of
comp.lang.scheme?
That a small-step operational semantics is compositional.
Q: What does compositional mean?
Defined by structural induction over syntax.
Q: Is Dr Richter's semantics compositional?
No.
Q: Why isn't Dr Richter's semantics compositional?
Because his semantics is the totalization of the transitive closure of beta-value reduction:
((lambda (x) M) V) --> M[V/x] (where V is a value)
Substituting V for x yields a term that is not a subterm of the redex
on the left side of that arrow.
In a definition by structural induction, the meaning of the redex must
be defined by a function of the meanings of its proper subterms.
Q: Why doesn't Dr Richter understand this?
He doesn't want to understand it.
Q: Why does Dr Richter think his semantics is compositional?
The trivial semantics, which maps each term to itself, is compositional. Bill's small-step operational semantics satisfies all sets of equations that are satisfied by the composition of his operational semantics with the identity function. Since the identity function is compositional, Bill concludes that his operational semantics is compositional.
Yes, but he doesn't get it.
Q: Has anyone tried to explain this to Dr Richter?
Several competent people have tried to clue him in, but he is actively clue-resistant. Bill is the sort of fellow who (on thirty separate occasions!) will quote only half of a definition so he can claim it means the opposite of what it says in context. Bill is also the sort of fellow who, when confronted with the complete quotation, will continue to insist that his mendacious misreading of the definition "makes perfect sense" and should be preferred over the definition given by every competent authority. Like Monty Python's Black Knight, Bill is invincible, immune to reason, and allergic to logic.
Q: What arguments does Dr Richter offer in support of his views?
Most of Bill's arguments fall into one or more of the following categories:
Q: Has Dr Richter responded to your analysis of his arguments?
Yes.
On 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 August 2004,
in comp.lang.scheme,
Bill posted nine messages on the subject of
"Clinger's sloppiness in his RichterFAQ".
He added two more messages to this sequence on 25 and 28 August,
but in the original thread.
These links contain the complete text of those messages:
Q: Did Dr Richter find any errors in this FAQ?
No.
Q: What does Dr Richter think of this FAQ?
On 12 August 2004,
in a message posted to comp.lang.scheme,
Bill Richter wrote:
...I shouldn't get upset if a CS person falsely
accusing me of Math errors on his home page. A few days ago, when I
thought you had a real pure Math PhD, I was sweating, I thought, "What
if my guys see this? I'm behind the 8-ball enough as it is!" :)
(By the way, this is not
my home page,
and none of my other web pages link to this one.
Also, my PhD was awarded by the mathematics department at MIT
upon completion of their doctoral program in pure mathematics.)
On the day after that, Bill complained to Shriram Krishnamurthi:
But I say it's a black mark against your leadership
that you allowed Will to beat the stuffing out of me day in and day
out, without even demurring, "Will, I'm sure you're right, but I have
no clue what you're saying. Either take it off the group, or slow
down, so the rest of us can follow. And please try harder to answer
Richter's mathematical objections."
So here it is, off the group, in a form that can be read slowly.
On
21 August 2004,
Bill suggested the following disclaimer:
Here's some of the more ridiculous sounding things that Richter posted,
and some of my wittier responses. But don't take this for a definitive
account of the argument: Richter disputed all of my responses here on
the group, and I'm not including everything.
Q: Why did you write this FAQ?
Bill has questioned the competence of all who disagree with him. To attack those individuals, he has maligned entire groups of people: pure and applied mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers. He has done this in a public forum, on a regular basis, in hundreds of messages over an extended period of time, making no attempt to prevent those posts from being archived at Google Groups and other public websites. This site is, in part, a public defense of those whom Bill has publicly maligned in the past or will malign in the future.
This site also records our hard-earned experience, which might someday benefit the readers of some other newsgroup Bill may afflict.
Q: What is the history of this FAQ?
I began to write this FAQ in early August, when Bill was arguing that partial recursive functions are not computable. (Before he was done with that topic, he had argued that computable functions must have finite domains.) I announced this FAQ on 11 August 2004. By the first of September, Bill was generally regarded as a crank whose trolling should just be ignored, and I revised the FAQ to reflect that consensus.
Q:
Why didn't you respond in comp.lang.scheme instead of
writing this FAQ?
During the summer of 2004, I posted over 100 messages in response to the 261 posted by Dr Richter. This conversation became repetitive and annoying. It made more sense to write this FAQ than to continue to respond to him in the newsgroup.
Q:
What is the best way for readers of comp.lang.scheme
to respond to Dr Bill Richter?
The best way to respond to him is not to respond to him. Responding to him in the newsgroup has been tried. It does no good. If a response falls short of overt hostility, Bill will regard the response as partial agreement and vindication. If a response is overtly hostile, Bill will take that to mean the responder isn't intelligent enough to acknowledge that Bill is right, which is also a kind of vindication. Either way, the response encourages Bill to post more Billspit.
If you feel you must respond to one of Bill's posts, please consider Ray Dillinger's advice on how to deal with trolls.
Q:
What do other readers of comp.lang.scheme think of
Dr Bill Richter?
The consensus is that Bill is a troll, albeit an unusual troll. On 1 and 2 September 2004, a new thread included several messages that provide a great deal of insight into Bill's motives:
I don't think I do any damage at all. You guys have falsely claimed
that my semantics isn't compositional, and in the process, it seems
clear to me that your compositionality beliefs contain serious
mathematical errors. But you won't scrutinize 'em. Sounds to me like
you guys are doing the damage, if any. And your troll insults are a
low blow, since you refuse to put your Math where your mouth is.
Matthias Blume, William D Clinger, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. We are not saints.
Last updated 10 September 2004.