Re: [computer-go] citation

[Harry Wang <foreversoldier@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Evan Daniel <evanbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Harry Wang
> <foreversoldier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > well, I bet there are many ways to illustrate why
> > John's definition is wrong. Let me me just start
> with
> > a simple example:
> > 
> > >
> > > $$  -----------------------------------------
> > > $$  | . . . . . X X X . . . . . . . . . . . |
> > > $$  | . . . . . O O O . . . . . . . . . . . |
> > > $$  | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
> > 
> > Now see my point on this issue?
> 
> No, I don't.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, any definition applicable
> to computer go
> needs to be evaluated based on how useful it is. 
> From a computer go
> perspective, there exists a set of problems that
> John's definition
> neatly describes.  It happens to primarily consist
> of things that look
> like ladders, or stairs, or snakes, or whatever you
> want to call it. 
> Regardless, they all behave in a fairly similar
> fashion from the
> computer reading perspective.  So, why try to throw
> out some of the
> group just because it doesn't meet your preconceived
> sensibilities? 
> That arbitrarily adds to the complexity of the
> definition, reduces its
> relevance to the real world of computer go
> programming, and adds
> nothing to justify itself.
> 
> So, what exactly is wrong with using John's
> definition, and applying
> the term "ladder" to it?  That seems the most
> natural thing to call
> it, and also the most useful definition to attach to
> the term.
> 
> Evan Daniel


I respectfully disagree with everything you have
stated above. But you are certainly entitled to your
own opinion. 

-harry


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/