Re: computer-go: Which Maths Is OT?

[John Aspinall <jga@xxxxxxx>]

At 12:09 AM -0400 10/28/99, Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>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.

I'm sorry, but I can't even parse this.  The "PoMo Game", as defined by a
previous message from me, is extremely relevant to science -- it separates
good science from bad science.  In good science, words are used precisely
and carefully.  In bad science, a flow of jargon obscures the meaning.

  >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.

So what tool do you want to borrow?  How do you want to define it?

It has been claimed, on this list, that Go has "sensitive dependence on
initial conditions".  Now that phrase: "sensitive dependence on initial
conditions", has a precise meaning to someone who studies chaos.  That
meaning is defined with tools like Lyapunov exponents.  So here's your
choice:

 (a) "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" means the SAME thing as
it does in chaos theory.  Prove it.  Define Lyapunov exponent for a go
game.  A previous message from Roy Easton has already shown how difficult
this will be.

(b) "Sensitive dependence on initial conditions" means a DIFFERENT thing
than it does in chaos theory.  You just used the phrase because of some
loose analogy with chaos theory.  You don't really expect chaos theory to
be relevant to go.  Oh, you do.  Oops, you're playing the PoMo game.