Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:59:18 03/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2000 at 21:16:47, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 28, 2000 at 19:46:50, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On March 28, 2000 at 13:05:27, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>[big snip] >>>The bottom line from my point of view is that computers will one day surpass the >>>overall single human intelligence threshold just like they are surpassing the >>>single human intelligence threshold in specific areas such as chess and >>>mathematics today (in agreement with you). >> >> Computers have not surpassed human intelligence in mathematics, and they are >>very far from that. >>José. >> >>[big snip] > >I agree that the application of mathematics still rests in the hands of humans. > True, and actually doing math is still performed by humans. >But humans no longer perform the actual calculations (for complex mathematics). Mathematicians never did. Before we used abacus, slide rules, calculators and even less gifted humans who did not mind to do the "dirty job". >They rely on computers for that. Because they are faster and more accurate than the previous tools. >And in fact, computers have solved many >problems that were beyond human mathematical capability just a few short decades >ago. I am not aware of any relevant mathematical problem solved by a computer. >For example, EGTBs. They are mathematically irrelevant. >There are a lot of examples of GMs being incorrect when >it came to endgames (which in reality can be expressed as a complex mathematical >equation). > True, but the contents of the tablebases (for example, the longest conversions found by Stiller in some six men endgames) bear absolutely no importance for math. >KarinsDad :) José. P.S. I replied because the reference to EGTB's make these posts tangentially on-topic.
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.