Re: computer-go: Go and chaos theory

[Avijit Ghosh <aghosh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, John Aspinall wrote:

> At 7:38 AM -0500 10/26/99, Ray Easton wrote:
> >Systems with a finite number of states are by definition not chaotic.
> 
> Thank you, for injecting a note of sanity in this discussion which was
> increasingly resembling the PoMo game.

	Hi, I hadn't read the original set of posts but caught the
last two (apologies if i'm being redundant) but I always got the
impression the 'chaotic' bit, while discrete/finite, was an expression of
the fact that the optimum soln veers away w/ slight perturbations (though
of course discrete) i.e. given a board the new optimum trajectories will
veer quickly away from each other. By trajectory i mean just the optimum
moves given certain assumed initial conditions (i.e. configurations of the
board).  By analogy, closed quantum systems could be said to be discrete,
finite (finite number of energy states, constant volume (infinite
potential wells) ,constant energy, constant number of particles) but still
pretty much behave in the same way, for example a closed container of gas
modeled non-classically and I think we're a bit forgiving of calling that
system 'chaotic'. Perhaps less rigorously, one could argue that that
computers have a finite number of states and there for have no business
emulating anything (or calling anything) chaotic, but that also seems a
bit unfair. But anyway..

	And the real reason for me to post is : Could someone tell me the
mantra of unsubscribing/subscribe to the list? I'd like to this account to
a different one (which is why i missed all the posts)

	-avi