Ok Nick, The funny thing about this, is that I was originally defending someone who after making a simple post got flooded with all the stale size of the universe and grains of sands arguments - presumably to prove he was wrong when he made a simple statement which was correct. He made the horrible mistake of saying "1 billion" years and I guess that's where he went wrong. Everyone jumped in as if he was an idiot for thinking it would only take 1 billion years.
I also admit I got annoyed with those arguments about the size of the game, I felt it was pretty redundant and I don't know of anyone on this group that needed a refresher course on this - everyone knows how huge this problem is. I'm sure you understand physics much more than I do. However, I disagree about dimensionality and if I'm wrong I have a thick skin and you can explain it to me and I will believe you. One of the theoretical limitations to computing power (which was layed out in someones posts) and I have always understood to be the case, is related to space - the physical size of the universe. If a computer can exist in 3 dimensions, couldn't an infinite number of them exist with 1 more dimension? Couldn't one be constructed that is far more highly parallel that what we can construct in our 3 physical dimensions? - Don On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 03:38 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > I would first just like to say, there have been many times in my life > where I have known 1000 times more than someone else and I didn't feel > the need to be an ass. I'm sure you are a nice person, but please > don't treat me like I am a moron. Some assumptions you made about me > that aren't true: > > 1) you assume I didn't understand what "solvable" means in a > mathematical sense. I think in a more important way, solvable means > "is able to be solved" and frankly that question is still able to be > debated regarding go. From a mathematical standpoint, any game with a > finite set of states is solvable. > > 2) You assume that I took 1 billion years literally... Oh my, I > would venture to say that I have had a whole lot more physics than you > have my friend and I understand how people get those numbers. > > 3) You assume that I don't know that changing the board size doesn't > necessariyl change all the properties of the game. I mean how dumb do > you think I am? > > But, I am going to point out a couple problems in what you said since > you seem to be up for being an ass. > > 1) Multiple dimensions doesn't help at all. Information processing > ability as well as informataion storing ability is proportional to a > 2D surface surrounding the area that is able to be used for the > computation. This is the upper limit given with thermodynamics which > is probably the only part of physics that has laws that are well > founded. > > 2) The reason I object to infinity as a concept is not because of my > mental inferiority. In fact, infinity is a concept that comes quite > readily to me. I learned it early in my youth and when I first saw a > graph of velocity versus time (age 12 maybe) I knew that the area > under it was displacement. I had taken calc 2 as a sophmore in > highschool. The problem I have with it in regards to what you were > talking about is that it has never been proven to exist anywhere in > the actual world and there is lots of evidence that it doesn't exist. > > > > That said, I have seen you post before and I enjoy reading your posts, > but please don't flame me. Just because I am new to computer go > doesn't mean I am a moron. I might bring something new. If you all > had it figured out already, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I > have a lot to learn from you and I look forward to that. Please be > more respectful. I am sorry that this was a harsh message, but I feel > you were unfair to attack me as you did. > > Sincerely, > Nick > > On 1/12/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:43 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > > yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by > > thermodynamics. 19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed > out. But, > > even if you believe that technology will improve and the > most > > revolutionary change yet will come to understanding of > physics and > > that change will give us signifigantly more computational > power and > > time etc... You can always make a bigger board. If life > comes to a > > point where go could be solved for any size board, you will > no longer > > be in this world and solving things such as "is go > solvable?" will > > have no meaning. > > Yes, you can always make a bigger problem by making a bigger > go board > but > that doesn't change the theoretical properties of the game. > The game > will always be solvable. > > The game might be trivially solvable even now to a being not > confined > to our 3 physical dimensions. I hate to get philosophical > like this, > but there are theories of other dimensions that (if true) say > we live > in a multi-dimensional universe. There may be much more > here than > we can sense and that we can perhaps take advantage of. > > But it doesn't matter. When Chris said 1 billion years you > should > have instantly realized that he didn't mean this literally, > he just > meant a correct procedure exists for solving the game. > Since no > one has proved how long the universe will last, I don't think > you > can even prove that in a practical sense it's unsolvable. If > you > lack imagination you can simply say it's not solvable because > you > believe it can't be done in your lifetime - as if science and > math > cares about how long we live or even the universe. If the > universe > will die in 10 trillion years does that mean the number 20 > trillion > is an impossible number? > > The concept of infinity is important in mathematics. It's > even useful, > but I suppose that it really should be considered meaningless > since > we all die after 70 or 80 years. > > - Don > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
