I confess I did not think of the existence of correlations. I simply
thought 1.2% was quite low,
wondered how that could be, and marvelled at how close this simple
calculation came to
that result. My feathers may deserve some ruffling - but I remain
obstinately mellow! Anyway,
fwiw, it was my 1.232% of survivors that I thought was on the high
side. I should read the paper.
Arthur
On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Kahn Jonas wrote:
I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was
refering to his own analytic result (1.232) as being "on the high
side", not John's result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly
assuming that John's number is correct (which I think we all are),
and then rationalising what the discrepancy is between his analytic
result and John's. Personally I found his analysis very helpful.
The way I read the reply from Jonas, he is similarly is referring
to Arthur's calculation, not John's (specifically he is referring
to Arthur's reasoning), other than that he also is assuming
implicitly that John's calculation is correct.
I cannot speak for Arthur, but my answer was indeed specific to the
quick
and (not so?) dirty estimate by Arthur. I did not refer in any way to
Tromp's result, nor did I try to get a real estimate.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
