[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [computer-go] citation

But  that wasn't your  point at  all, you  said
John's  definition was
INCORRECT.

-----

yes, let me answer this briefly for now. yes, John's
definition is INCORRECT. ( with no disrespect to John
) I also mentioned it's a casual definition because
most casual definitions are created due to lack of
experience and thus incorrect.

Are you saying that:

- for all (or most) x, if x is casual then x is incorrect;
- A is incorrect;
- therefore A is casual?

This would be 'WRONG'.


For reference again, here is what  John said that
seems pretty easy to
understand by any reasonble interpretation, if not
completely formal:

  Given a position on an arbitrarily-sized Go board,
  and a white group with 2 liberties, can Black keep
  putting white
  in atari---that is, reduce white to 1
  liberty---until capture?


I agree that this definition is easy to understand.
However, this definition for ladder is simply WRONG
because it cover just some aspect of ladder formation
and many many other Go formations.

hope this helps.
Not really: we are still waiting for a "correct" or at least better definition of "ladder". As many have said before, Sensei's does not give a definition but some examples. (Remind's me of: the definition of shoe polish is that when the box is empty you spit in it.)

I think that John's definition is correct (not as overly general as you suggest), at least when the original white group has 2 stones or more... A few examples:

$$ -----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , X . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . X O O b . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . a . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X c . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , X O O X . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X d . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X X . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X O O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X f X . . . . . X O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O O O X . . . , . e . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . X X g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------

Of course 'a' cannot be considered the beginning of a ladder in the common sense, but 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e' and 'f' are, without doubt. 'g' is debatable, but the situation is not far removed from a ladder IMHO. It seems that the definition is more than 'simply WRONG'.


Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland http://www.sente.ch

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/