On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 03:47 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
I bet Windows Vista would still run slow on God's computer though. Go
Microsoft! Sorry to get off topic, I just figure we have beat this
subject to death.
You would probably just have to reboot it more often.
- Nick
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 06:03 -0300, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote:
As far I know, just coffee speaking with some physics
friends. WE ALL live in multi dimensional world.
Indeed, if more then 3 dimensions exists, we exist in
them, also our computers. The thing is, our eyes only
see the first three
Way off topic, on behalf of physical evidence of the dimension of universe:
In an n-dimensional universe any radiation that propagates under
common circumstances:
1. Conservation of energy
2. Constant speed
3. Isotropy (same intensity in all directions)
satisfies:
At a distance d from the
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Any coherent higher dimension model should explain which
of the three circumstances is not met, how and why and
without making any particular dimension different from the
others. Something a lot more complicated than just drawing
easy conclusions from
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
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.
The problem with higher dimensions is that they are small
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 16:21 -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
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
On 16, Jan 2007, at 5:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
For instance if there existed 2 dimensional beings, we could not show
them 3 dimensional objects,
The answers to this are in Flatland: A romance of many dimensions a
nice short book by E.A. Abbott.
just reflections of them
slices
and any
I just wanted to thank everyone - so far - for their responses/ help
biblio's... even though some responses sling off topic... and also to add my
2-cent.
Although I am very new to the world of Go... and my understanding very
limited - I would like to believe that there are hidden solutions
Joshua Shriver a écrit :
I agree, anyone play othello/Reversi?
Yes, I do othello programming.
From my understanding it has been solved. Yet when I try to find info
Othello 6x6 has been solved (and can be easily played perfectly on
modern computer), but othello 8x8 is still unsolved, as far
Blokus www.blokus.com looks like an interesting challenge that is
similar to go, but doesn't have so large a state space.
It has some similarities to go if you are using pattern templates to
look for structures.
NIck
On 1/14/07, Richard Delorme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Shriver a écrit
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Leaton
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 3:40 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
Blokus www.blokus.com looks like an interesting challenge
that is similar
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:
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:51 +, Mehdi Ahmadi wrote:
Hello thank in advance for any interests/ responses.
I'm unfortunately (or not) doing a dissertation as part of my final year
project (undergraduate) on the game of Go. The exact title is: Can the game
of go be solved? Analysis of
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
On Friday 12 January 2007 16:16, Chris Fant wrote:
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect information that has a
clear rule set can be solved. Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs). A better question is,
CM-1's processing element is not a transputer but a custom (CMOS) 1-bit
ALU with 4Ki bit of RAM. I know this is not essential but believe this
kind of correction is old men's role :-).
alain Baeckeroot: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le samedi 13 janvier 2007 15:06, Don Dailey a écrit :
If a computer can
Le samedi 13 janvier 2007 16:46, Hideki Kato a écrit :
CM-1's processing element is not a transputer but a custom (CMOS) 1-bit
ALU with 4Ki bit of RAM. I know this is not essential but believe this
kind of correction is old men's role :-).
oops, true, my memory mixed up some old stuff :)
oops, accidentally sent to just Don Dailey
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jan 13, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is a link for anybody that is interested in why I say 2
On 1/14/07, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Essentially says that the maximum amount of information is proportional to
the 2D surface around it. Even if we live in a many-dimensional world (I
happen to believe we do), the area surrounding it
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect information that has a
clear rule set can be solved. Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs). A better question is, Can Computer Go Surpass Human
Go? But again, clearly
suspect.
-- Terry McIntyre
- Original Message
From: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:16:35 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect
A much more up-to-date bibliography is maintained by Markus Enzenberger:
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~emarkus/compgo_biblio/
Terry McIntyre
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for
in my lifetime, I suspect.
-- Terry McIntyre
- Original Message
From: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:16:35 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
Seems like a silly title. Any game
Thank your for your response, Chris.
I think as Allis et al (1991, 1994) points out there is a difference in
'crackable' and 'solvable' where the former tend to be search-based
complexities and the later decision-based complexity. Irrespective of the
opponent via the cracking approach the best
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect information that has a
clear rule set can be solved. Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs). A better question is, Can Computer Go Surpass Human
Go? But again, clearly it
On 12-jan-07, at 14:16, Chris Fant wrote:
Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs).
To 'solve' a game in the strict sense you need to know the best
answer to every move. And you need to be able to prove that it's
. But solve go? Never.
Dave
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: vrijdag, januari 12, 2007 7:03 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
You neglected to consider the power of future quantum computers.
On 1/12/07, Mark Boon [EMAIL
go? Never.
Dave
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: vrijdag, januari 12, 2007 7:03 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
You neglected to consider the power of future quantum computers.
On 1/12/07, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi,
On 1/12/07, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
I appreciate your response. Mathematical solutions are certainly a good
possibility to reduce the amount of processing power needed. However, a
person would not be able to solve 19x19 because a person lacks the necessary
computational resources to form a solution in any reasonable amount of
Peter Drake wrote:
There are a number of definitions of solved, ranging from a program
exists that can beat any human to we can quickly determine, for any
position, the best move and the result under optimal play. In the
latter strong sense, I believe Go has only been solved up to 5x5,
maybe
White in 42 moves ;)
Have a good weekend everyone.
-Josh
that, a perfectly fair komi could be calculated. From what I know, even
chess is still unsolved conserning this matter - noone knows if white (or
even black) can force a win.
___
computer-go
I agree, anyone play othello/Reversi?
From my understanding it has been solved. Yet when I try to find info
on reversi computer tournaments they all seemed to die out several
years ago.
-Josh
On 1/12/07, Chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides the technical question if it is possible,
Another interesting question would be the score (eg. territorry) that
black/white can reach assuming perfect play on both sides. If we knew
that, a perfectly fair komi could be calculated. From what I know, even
chess is still unsolved conserning this matter - noone knows if white (or
even
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much
data?
Chris Fant isn't a modern-day human but an android sent back
through a wormhole from future times (Future ^2, Left **7, Right **.13,
to the root of SQRT(-1) in hex
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
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 21:51 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi,
On 1/12/07, Nick Apperson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
