Re: computer-go: Which Maths Is OT?

[Compgo123@xxxxxxx]

There are several focal points in recent posts. Either in positive or 
negative points of view every post contributes to the discussion and in turn 
to our understanding of the subject.  I'll comment on those view points in 
the following.

1. The Po-Mo concept. If examining it carefully, one will realize that this 
concept is meaningful only in the field of philosophy and religion. In the 
field of science this concept is meaningless. The very essence of science 
exludes the existence of Po-Mo in it's field. 

2. Is Go chaotic? May be and may be not. But it doesn't matter. What we want 
to do is to use the methods in different scientific fields to solve the 
problems in Go. Definitions are made by human. If it doesn't fit completely, 
let's establish a new definition of a new subject.  We are trying to borrow 
tools from Chaos theory, not trying to fit Go into Chaos theory.

3. Is mathematics important in computer Go or, generally, in Go itself? I 
have to say a definitely yes. Go has a rich content of mathematics. This is 
agreed by probably most people. I too think there two different approaches in 
programming Go. One is 'mathematic' approach and the other one is the AI 
approach. I would more tend to call the later approach the 'heuristic' 
appraoch. However, the boundary between the two approaches is not all that 
clear. They are closely intertwined. Many of the methods can be classified 
belonging to both categories. Even they are two different appraoches. I 
believe, at the end,  the two appraoches will be found to be essentially the 
same. Yes, the heuristic approach is still far from reaching it's limit. But 
significant advance in computer Go can only come from either hardware 
revolution ( i.g. the brute search becomes possible), or, the most likely, 
from the advance in mathematical theories of Go. 


Dan Liu