Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 17:14:41 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 19:36:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 09, 2001 at 19:34:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >[snip] >>>And it is clear that people who consider intractible problems to be O(1) are >>>using a set of definitions that are without value. >> >>I did not formulate the definition, but I do find it to be of value all the >>same. > >Valuable for WHAT? > >It certainly can't be used for computation if it delivers up answers like >"Chess is O(1)" It delivers the access of chess EGTBs as O(1) and I find that useful. It delivers n*n chess as O(exp(n)) and find that useful too. What am I missing?
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.