Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 13:59:17 03/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2000 at 15:30:31, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 29, 2000 at 12:59:18, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >[snip] > >>>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. > > >Putting the question of relevance aside, I do not have any off the top of my >head. But it is obvious that there has to be complex problems such as real time >missile flight detection (or the recent bullet deflection systems) which could >not be solved before the advent of computers. > They are not mathematical problems. >Whether you consider problem solving time to be a function of mathematics or not >does not make the problems irrelevant to solve. Being important for other fields does not make a problem important for mathematics. >Also, there are problems so >complex that people could spend lifetimes working on them and not solve them, >but a computer could solve within a day. An example of this type of problem >could be the location of all planets and moons within our solar system 1000 >years from today. Whether this is a relevant problem to solve is irrelevant. > This is another example of a non-mathematical problem. > >> >>>For example, EGTBs. >> >>They are mathematically irrelevant. > > >I disagree. What is the main purpose of mathematics? It is a series of equations >which are used to model or emulate some portion of the real world or some real >world problem (usually) in order to achieve a result or an answer. > I am not interested in long philosophical discussions about the purpose of mathematics. Let me just say that my point of view on the purpose of math is completely different from what you posted. >Endgames are a problem which are relevant to chess. Here I fully agree! >Some people can do real well >at them, most people cannot. So, they can be represented with a series of >complex mathematical equations and solved. However, these equations are SO >complex that the vast majority of people could not even define them. In fact, >they are so complex that I believe that nobody has even attempted to solve them >for endgames with more than 3 pieces (with a few specific exceptions). But, a >computer can be used with relatively simple equations to exhaustively create >EGTBs for various number and types of pieces. Hence, the problem can be solved. >Just because it was solved (for 3, 4, and 5 piece endings) using an exhaustive >approach as opposed to a complex mathematical approach does not mean that >endings are mathematically irrelevant. > If I were arbiter of a math journal and I were given a research paper with some of the contents of chess tablebases, I would simply reject the paper on grounds of lack of relevance, and advice the author to submit to the ICGA Journal. >In fact, the exact opposite is true. This is a real world model which is >extremely hard to represent with mathematics without a computer, even if you had >a decade to solve it for 5 piece endings. It is even more difficult to resolve >in real time (i.e. without setting up all of the answers in a database ahead of >time). But a realtime without a large database solution probably can be done >with a computer. It just hasn't been done yet due to complexity. > >Hence, I propose to you that without the use of a computer, you could not create >a set of "tables", "charts", and/or "equations" that could be handed out to >people and could answer all 3, 4, and 5 men endgames. This is true. >Therefore, you could not >solve this problem mathematically without a computer in any reasonable timeframe >(say, the next 50 years), if at all. > And I am not interested in the very least to do that! >KarinsDad :) José.
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.