Robert, Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from and be more precise about what they are trying to define? It's obvious that they are providing some kind of formal framework for establishing the CREDIBILITY of a claim of proof, not what a proof or solution really is.
For instance if I solve a Rubiks cube in private, is it sudenly not solved because I did not follow certain arbitrary formalities? No, it just means that I cannot credibly claim to have solved it. The 5x5 guys, in my opinion, did not credibly solve the 5x5 board. But I don't think they made extravagant claims either. It's extremely common in games research to have papers like this, where results are reported but completely unverifyable and it drives me nuts. - Don On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > >> in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an >> absolute proof. >> > > A practical computational problem is "solved" iff > a) the underlying theory is published, > b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically, > c) the algorithm is published, > d) the algorithm is proven mathematically, > e) the used computer environment is stated, > f) there is a statement that the computation has been done successfully and > g) it is possible to repeat the computation independently. > > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
