Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 10:48:45 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 13:26:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 09, 2001 at 13:08:18, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >[snip] >>In the traveling salesman problem, f(n) is NP rather than P, since there does >>*not* exist a constant c sth f(n) = c*P, since n is unbounded. >> >>It essential to understand the terms bounded, unbounded and infinity in their >>proper context. > >Since there are a finite number of cities, the travelling salesman problem has >SUDDENLY BECOME BOUNDED and you have solved question as to whether a polynomial >time solution exists. In fact, by your definition, you have found a solution >which is O(1). > >I imagine the computer science community will be very happy to hear about this. > >They don't have a nobel prize for computer science, which is probably just as >well. I see no need getting sarcastic here. There sure are finite number of cities, but the travelling salesman problem *scales*, while chess don't. Each salseman problem is independant and number of cities is not bounded. Chess is a one-time problem; if you solve it, then you solved all chess positions. I think one should not confuse finite chess problem with minimax algorithm which can be applied to unbound problems as well as to chess. -Andrew-
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.