> > We can also imagine the moon being made of green cheese without this > > actually being the case. I don't see any problem with considering the > > behavior of a machine with certain characteristics just because we can't > > produce one. > > Of course we can imagine the moon being made of green cheese. > The problem I have with that -- and the reason I assert that it > _does_ matter -- is that if one begins by assuming an utterly > false premise, one can prove _anything_. And you don't need _any_ > computer for that! Don't need to stretch the brain much at all. > > Surely logic matters a little, doesn't it?
Imagining what something would be like if it were different is not the same as starting with a false premise - I think you are confused about what logic is. Being able to do that is pretty much the foundation of science. Form a hypothesis and if you can't directly experiment on it, which sometime you can't, you reason on it and then sometime dismiss it. In parallel computing there is a way to estimate the "critical path" of your program. The definition of critical path is "the ideal execution time of your program on an infinite number of processors." I got this directly from the Cilk manual - which is a parallel programming language developed at MIT. I'm sure you would think this to totally illogical! You cannot physically have an infinite number of processors!!!! So their logic MUST BE WRONG! You are too smart for them and you should publish your results! > The only reason I responded in the first place, is that I have heard > _many_ people make the naive assertion, "There are a finite number of > go games, so 'if' we had enough time, we could just brute-force search > the game tree." My problem with that, is that it is no more true than > to state that the moon is made of green cheese. That statement is logically true I'm afraid. Your logic is wrong. If we had enough time is the key phrase. YOU are simply asserting that we DON'T have enough time which doesn't change the truth of the statement you have a problem with. Whether you are right or wrong has nothing to do with it - your logic is in error - your prime directive is to seek out illogical statements and squash them - EXECUTE YOUR PRIME DIRECTIVE - kill yourself! > It seemed to me that I was hearing that same naive assertion, again. > And then when it is followed by, "That's true, isn't it? What am I > missing?" I feel compelled to answer. (They always seem to ask that!) I don't really know what you are missing - but you clearly are not being logical. All I can think of is that you are confusing logic with fact. Logic doesn't have to be based on fact at all. What do you think of this statement: "If I could run at 60 miles per hour - I could go a mile in 1 minute" This is a perfectly logical statement and there are no logical flaws. I don't know what you are missing - but I can easily imagine that you would believe this to be a false statement even though it is logically true. You would get obsessed with the running 60 mile per hour and get fixated on that and claim the statement isn't logical. > "If" is definitely the operative word, as you say. > > People are free, of course to imagine all sorts of falsehoods, and, > should one want to label them "thought experiments" that's fine with me. I think I now know what you are missing. You don't understand what a falsehood is. "If I could run 60 miles an hour" is NOT a falsehood. It's not true or false. If instead I said, "I can run 60 miles an hour" it would be clearly false. > People can and do believe all sorts of things that simply are not true; > it seems that humans are capable of believing _anything_! There is nothing that has been stated - even things you have accused others of stating that is a falsehood. > Perhaps I overreacted to hearing the same tired nonsense yet again, > but "It ain't necessarily so." (And he did ask what he was missing.) > > Actually, it has been proved, I think, not only that there is a > finite amount of matter (storage space) but also that the age of > the universe is finite. I'm not up to reproducing the proof in > this forum; it's just what I "believe". Perhaps I am wrong. This is almost certainly true - but it has nothing to do with the logic of computational complexity - which actually can deal with infinity even if you cannot. Just like the Cilk manual can deal with the concept of an infinite number of computers even though it's illogical to you. > To be quite honest, I have only a vague understanding of what is > called "computational complexity" -- but it's clear enough that, > _even_given_an_infinite_amount_of_storage_ it would take longer > than the age of the universe to exhaustively search the game tree, > and it is equally clear that, _even_given_infinite_time_ it would > take more bits than there are particles in the universe. > > Thus, "IF" there is _not_only_ a finite amount of matter, _and_ > "IF" the age of the universe is _also_ finite, then unicorns do > not exist (in my opinion). > > Your mileage may _not_ vary; that's just the truth. (Again, my > opinion. Readers are free to believe any foolish thing they wish.) What are we believing that you think is false? Please tell me. > I assert further that some peoples' opinions have more value than > others'. (My opinion.) > > I'm not trying to get all bent-out-of-shape about this; just sharing > my _opinions_ with the readers. (I'm hopeful that they will see the > light.) > > "If" my presentation seems a bit didactic, it's only because I'm right. > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
