On 10.09.2015 10:29, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
Perhaps you could give some more concrete examples of what you have done
already; i.e. where you have moved from the messy human
linguistic/cognitive "principles" to something much more formal?
In my principles (or other theory), the degree of ambuigity varies from
formal to ordinary language.
Example of a formal formula: dF =? 0
where F is 'fighting liberties' and the formula applies to what I call
'class 1 semeais'.
Example of (seemingly) ordinary language in a principle about defending
life in a fight: "Maintain connection of a group's important strings."
This is not ordinary language though but I use 'connection' and
'important string' as consistent terms in all my books, where the former
is defined but the latter is (still) undefined.
Consistent use of the same terms and defined concepts everywhere and
well chosen definitions for the basic terms remove much of the mess and
enable hierarchic design and use of principles etc.
For several hundred further examples of definitions and principles, see
my books and papers. For my first six of 11 books and earlier papers /
messages, see the short overview
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/RobertJasiekGoTheoryResearch.html
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
