Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:01:46 05/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2001 at 19:19:11, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >On May 11, 2001 at 17:28:33, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Of course, everyone agrees by now. >> >>Chess is O(1), because if you get a big enough constant (nobody knows what it >>is) then it will be big enough to outweigh the time to run the program. That's >>because the board is finite and the pieces are finite and the number of plies is >>finite (at some point, but at least 5948*2 as a bare minimum). So, with all >>those finite inputs, the algorithm will eventually terminate. Just wait until >>it does and pick that number plus 1 as your constant. Q.E.D. This camp (the >>)(1) camp) is clearly, and unmistakeably correct. >> >>Chess is O(exp(n)) because by definition, O(1) is O(exp(n)). So there can be no >>argument. This is by definition of the terms. Hence, the O(exp(n)) camp is >>correct by definition, since *every* O(1) function is also an O(exp(n)) function >>{trivially}. >> >>Chess behaves {from ply to ply} in an exponential progression as to time. >>Whether this is important or not seems to depend on who you are talking to. >>That's how I do analysis, but since there is no ISO specification for complexity >>analysis, you can do it however you darn well please. So long as you don't use any current literature to prove the point. :) In _my_ references, O(n) is used to predict algorithm run time or memory space. Nothing else. I don't see any restriction in any reference I have that says "If the input is not unlimited, it is O(1)". I gave a specific quote in another branch of this thread to show what I am seeing in my books on complexity. >> >>So. Since we all agree 100%, maybe it's time to just forget the whole thing. > >Wise words. :-) Agreed.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.